Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last year we were obligated to accept the assurances from the majority that under this new regime, pay-go would be respected, spending would be curbed, the entitlement crisis would be addressed, and the debt would be attacked. Undoubtedly, that was an ambitious agenda. Obviously, it didn't happen. We now have results, not predictions. When all was said and done last year, there was an $83 billion increase in discretionary spending. There was $143 billion in pay-go violations. Pay-go violations are provisions we put in the budget that help assure we get moving toward deficit reduction and eventually balancing the budget and reducing debt. We didn't close the tax gap. We added to the national debt. The budget was used to add spending, not reduce it. Previous to that year, we had always had strong budget provisions that forced budget discipline that actually held down spending. We did nothing for entitlement reform, and we assumed tax increases. When we began consideration of the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, I hoped everyone was aware of what was promised last year and what transpired. I hope they will use that knowledge with what we see today to understand that what we have now, with two budgets written, soon to be approved, is a pattern, a distinct pattern. That pattern is fiscally damaging to this country. The Democratic budget assumes a tax hike of at least $1.2 trillion which will hit 116 million Americans. This is the second year in a row that the majority party is expecting the American public to surrender more of their income to fund big government. The pay-for assumed in this budget is simply fantasy. The tax gap, for instance, instead of being closed, was actually expanded last year. Middle-class tax relief was not passed last year either. This budget pushes annual spending over the $1 trillion mark for the first time ever. It increases spending over the President's budget by at least $210 billion over 5 years. That is without including the $79 billion we are considering on the floor this week in the supplemental. We have certainly lost control of our budget. I want to take a moment and comment that our Budget Committee chairman must be having a little fun with us with his chart showing the difference between his budget and the President's budget. His claim that there is little difference between the two lines on his chart must be intended to be humorous, when the Y axis is over a trillion dollars. If he is teasing us, I appreciate his humor; if he is serious, I fear for us. Another huge problem in this budget is that the biggest fiscal danger in our future, the looming entitlement crisis, is made worse. Actually, ``danger'' isn't the word. It is not a threat. It is not a danger; it is reality. It is a fact. We need to deal with it. For a second year in a row, nothing is done to address the $66 trillion entitlement crisis now on our doorstep. The budget allows entitlement spending to grow by at least $500 billion over 5 years. This is a huge avalanche of debt waiting to bury our future. But we do nothing. We are not even doing something as productive as fiddling. We are just talking year after year and perhaps wishing it will go away. Instead of reducing the debt as they promised, the majority allows gross debt to climb by $2 trillion by 2013. That debt will have to be paid back by future generations. In fact, every American child will owe an additional $27,000 or more under this budget. We didn't see many amendments that tried to reduce the debt. I offered one to try to do that, where we looked at those programs that were rated as ineffective. I asked the Members of this body to vote with me to not have a pay increase to these ineffective programs. I thought at least we will let them maintain their funding levels for the previous year. We won't give them an increase, just as we would do with a poorly performing employee. We were not able to get the votes we needed to even put that simple policy in effect. We face a huge challenge, and we need to have a budget that provides the enforcement mechanisms that bring some fiscal sanity back to the process. There is so much that is disappointing in this resolution that I hate to call attention to some specific points for fear of ignoring all others. But let me point out that an amendment I added in markup, which called for disclosures on debt, was removed. This shows the American public that there are things being done to their paychecks in this bill that the majority party doesn't want them to know. Now that our economy is trending in the wrong direction and when we need the benefits of a reasonable and pro-growth tax policy, we are going to depress our economic growth by adding to the debt and increasing taxes. When we consider these tax increases, let's remember, last year we were assured we would see tax relief. The first vote we were presented on the budget last year was to budget for an alleged middle-class tax cut. This never materialized. I believe Congress and especially the Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not politically expedient gamesmanship. I urge a return to a tighter and more credible budget document. I plan to offer several amendments to shore up the fiscal discipline we are seeing erode. Given that this budget assumes raised taxes, increased spending, increases in the debt, failure to address the entitlement crisis, and continuing the ongoing erosion of fiscal discipline in the Government, I feel compelled to vote against it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my understanding is we are in morning business, talking about the budget.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the North American Aerospace Defense Command Agreement between the United States and Canada. For my State of Colorado, today is an especially proud and gratifying occasion as it is home to the headquarters of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. On May 12, 1958, the United States and Canada signed an official agreement creating the unique and fully integrated binational North American Aerospace Defense Command, commonly known as NORAD. Administered by the United States Air Force in conjunction with Canadian Forces, NORAD is a premier military command that uses the most innovative technology and equipment to secure our skies. Today, 50 years after its inception, we honor NORAD and pay tribute to the men and women who have served and continue to serve NORAD's mission with humility and distinction. To these American and Canadian servicemembers, I say thank you. For five decades, NORAD's mission has been to prevent air attacks against North America and safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted and unauthorized air activity approaching or operating within our airspaces. In more recent years, NORAD's mission has evolved to include collaborative efforts with civilian law enforcement officers to detect and monitor aircraft suspected of trafficking illegal drugs to North America. In addition, NORAD has developed a system to help our homeland defense and security partners observe North American seas and to warn of encroaching maritime threats. In pursuit of these missions, NORAD has achieved remarkable success. Over the years NORAD has strengthened the venerable relationship between the United States and Canada. It has been a source of stability for our two nations during good times and bad. Throughout the turbulent Cold War, and now in the midst of the war on terror, NORAD is responsible for continually bringing together bright and courageous minds to help detect, deter and defend against lethal threats to the North American continent. Furthermore, NORAD has become a model for international defense cooperation. It has allowed for the necessary enhancement of information and intelligence sharing between Canadian and American militaries, intelligence agencies, and other security organizations. Twenty four hours a day, 7 days a week, NORAD units all over North America are alert, prepared and equipped to take action to defend our continent and to safeguard our freedoms. Throughout my nearly 18 years in the U.S. Congress, I have spent quite a bit of time with the commanders at NORAD, and each time we visit I am encouraged by their efforts and reminded of why America is, and will always be, great. With the safety and security of America entrusted to institutions like NORAD and to the brave men and women of our armed forces, I am confident that America will be protected for generations to come. Especially since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, and the launch of the war on terror, the continued resolve of the United States and Canada to pay any cost to face any foe is more relevant than ever. If we are to remain sovereign and free, America and Canada must continue to adapt to a changing world and respond effectively to evolving threats. I am confident in our ability to do so. Through NORAD and other binational partnerships, America and Canada will jointly and efficiently combat any threat we confront in the 21st century. Today, as a nation, we honor the legacy and achievements of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and we look forward to another half century of this successful partnership so that NORAD can continue to provide for the protection of our airspace and our homeland. I offer my sincere congratulations to the North American Aerospace Defense Command for 50 years of extraordinary service to the United States and Canada.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand the minority leader is on his way to make a few remarks. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor again to talk about energy prices. Each week we must finally be at the tipping point where Democrats are at least willing to address high energy prices. Unfortunately, although energy prices remain at an all-time high, it seems we are not there yet. The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year, with the average gas price at $3.61 per gallon. That means the average American will spend more than $1,800 this year on gasoline. That is almost $300 more than they would have spent a year ago. But let's look at a slightly longer period. Let's look at the period since Democrats took control of the Congress and insisted that they had all the answers. On January 4, 2007, a gallon of gas cost $2.33. That means the average American has spent $960 more on gasoline in the year and a half since Democrats took over. The question is, Why are we not producing the domestic oil available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge known as ANWR? The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the potential oil in ANWR would exceed that which is currently being produced in the lower 48 States. We hear a lot of moaning about how we should not open ANWR because that oil would not be available for 10 years. But I remember hearing that exact same argument about 10 years ago. If we had opened ANWR to domestic oil production 10 years ago, we would be less reliant on foreign sources for about 1 million fewer barrels each and every day. The question is, Why are we not producing in the Outer Continental Shelf? Currently, 58 percent of this area is off limits to production. The National Petroleum Council estimates if congressional restrictions were lifted, we would have access to more than 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is enough gas to meet all of the current U.S. needs for more than 13 years. Current levels of production in the Outer Continental Shelf employ over 45,000 people. To those of us concerned about employment figures, opening additional areas offshore will lead to more jobs in addition to increased domestic energy. The question is, Why are we not producing domestic oil from oil shale in Colorado, for example? The Democrats ensured that BLM could not write commercialization regulations by placing a spending prohibition in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill which is being applied this year from last year's action. Commercialization regulations do not authorize production or even lease. These regulations simply allow the department to set out the rules of the road for companies so they can make investment decisions--matters such as the length and requirements for oil shale leases, the royalty rate, and reclamation requirements that would be set by commercialization regulations. Considering there is well over 1 trillion barrels of oil locked in the shale beneath Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, this is not an inconsequential amount of energy. One trillion barrels of oil would provide for the current consumption levels of 20 million barrels a day for over 136 years. If the numbers seem staggering, that is because they are. The question is, Why are we not addressing the restrictive policies on the construction of new refineries that have led to no new refinery capacity in this country since the 1970s? We must encourage companies to build new refineries so not only can we produce more oil domestically, but we can refine it into a usable product as well. The law of supply and demand tells us with high demand and low supply, prices will increase. This seems to have escaped the notice of the Democrat-controlled Congress, however. Oblivious to prices at the pump, this Congress is failing in its duty to the American public. Each attempt to implement commonsense solutions to current energy problems is met with loud and vehement objections. At this point, these objections can only mean Democrats want energy prices to continue to increase. I can think of no other explanation. The facts are rather simple. The Congress has blocked efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevent the construction of new refineries, nuclear powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities. The longer we deny access to domestic supplies, the more our current energy shortages will climb. And the less energy we produce domestically, the more we will rely on foreign--and possibly hostile-- sources for it. It is time--it is time--for Congress to step to the plate and ensure this country remains one of the safest and most prosperous nations on Earth. That means increasing domestic energy production and decreasing our dangerous reliance on foreign energy sources. We will vote in a very short time on whether to increase domestic energy production or whether to maintain the status quo. I can only hope each of us does the right thing and votes in favor of the McConnell amendment to stop the status quo and to ensure we can produce more of the energy we need right here at home. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise to recognize and welcome the guest Chaplain for the Senate today, Pastor Brian Severin, who is the pastor of Victory Christian Fellowship Church, Greeley, CO. Pastor Severin has served in the full-time ministry for 23 years. He was born and raised in northeastern Colorado before attending and graduating from the University of Northern Colorado, which is also located in Greeley. Prior to coming to Greeley 6 years ago to minister to Victory Christian, he was the founding pastor for Church Alive in Sterling, CO, and served as pastor to New Life Fellowship in Yuma, CO. He is joined today by his wife of 27 years, Joslyn Severin, along with 14 members of his congregation. My colleagues and I very much appreciate Pastor Severin taking time away from his duties in Colorado to help guide us through our deliberations today in the Senate. May Pastor Severin's words of inspiration this morning make us wiser and kinder to each other as we go about conducting the people's business today. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Yesterday the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $3.62. What will the average gallon of gasoline in America have to cost for the leadership in Congress to step up to the plate with a comprehensive solution for consumers? It is time for Congressional leaders to be a part of the solution and not the problem. It is time to put every idea on the table and responsibly develop some of the vast energy resources we have right here at home. It is time for common sense to prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I compliment the minority leader for stepping forward on the issue of meeting the energy needs of our country and the provision he has just proposed as an amendment to this particular bill. I think it is very important that we move forward with creating more sources for energy. We have done a lot in this Congress to encourage and promote the development of renewable energy resources. In fact, as chairman and founder of the Energy Renewable Caucus, I have pushed that personally. I think it is extremely important. We have done a lot to promote this new technology, but the reality is, if we want to see pain at the pump immediately relieved, we have to do more. What we do in the particular amendment that was introduced by the minority leader, we begin to open the more traditional sources of energy that we have here in this country--sources that are supported by an infrastructure that is already in place. Although we do need more of it, there is some degree of it already there. Also, it is supported by technology we have already pretty well developed, to one extent or another, although more technological advances need to be done. Those are the traditional sources we find in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where we have more than 1.2 trillion barrels of oil, and the Outer Continental Shelf, the extent of whose value and resources is huge. I don't know as anybody has ever been able to really anticipate how great are the resources we have, because we have a huge amount. The provision also provides for opening the oil shale reserves we have in the State of Colorado--it is not only the State of Colorado, it is in the State of Utah and Wyoming. I am told we have well over a trillion barrels of petroleum that could be extracted from this resource. There is a total of somewhere around 1.7 trillion in that basin. Totally in the United States, we have well over 2 trillion barrels of shale. The technology has been developed now where, in my State, the companies that have been working on it--primarily Shell--have indicated they have come up with a pretty high-quality jet fuel. It needs some additional refining, with sulfur and nitrogen. This particular amendment begins to address that. In addition, we suspend the filling of the Petroleum Reserve. Right now, I am told there are about 70,000 barrels of oil being put in that Reserve on a daily basis. That will reduce the consumption of the petroleum products we have. Also, it repeals permitting and drilling fees that have acted as a disincentive for oil companies and gas producers when this particular provision was passed in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill. Also, it encourages coal-to-liquid fuels and also talks about increasing our refinery capacity. Right now, with all the various blends of fuel--some States have mandated 15 percent, in some cases as high as 20 percent--each time you have a different blend requirement mandated by a State, you have one refinery that gets dedicated to that particular blend. So we have a number of different States that are driving different blends of fuel. Then you have a different requirement for diesel fuel. What you do is you create a shortage of refiners. It kind of funnels down, and then, even if you increase production, you don't have the refineries available to kick out the particular blends we need to meet demands. We need to do a lot in advancing our battery technology. Where you have intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, the Sun doesn't shine all the time, the wind doesn't blow all the time. We need to have a good battery technology that will carry and supply energy at the times we don't have the adequate supply of wind and solar to carry on the demands on that particular system. We need to work more on biofuels. I am very excited. We put in incentives in this particular amendment to address that. I am excited; in Colorado, we have a biodiesel plant that takes the oil and grease and fats from restaurants, puts it together, and comes out with a biodiesel. It is a self-sustaining plant; they use the diesel they generate back into the plant to run their own electricity. It could be independent of the power lines, could be a stand-alone facility. It also helps us get rid of a byproduct out there that is a problem for our county dumps and whatnot. The exciting thing about this particular technology is it is to the point where they do not have to have government subsidies, which I think is a huge jump. I mentioned the oil shale moratorium, removing that, which was in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill. It also provides some reasonable approaches to the regulatory process so we can increase production on an emergency basis because we are facing an emergency situation in this country with the high prices we are facing here in America--and all over the world, as a matter of fact. We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more apparent and more clear to me that the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the seemingly endless upward pressure on energy prices. That is why I am so excited about the fact that the minority leader has introduced this amendment. Given their unyielding desire to increase taxes on much of the energy industry, I can only assume that the Democrats in Congress believe that steadily increasing energy prices provides political fodder upon which they can capitalize. Democrats in both Chambers appear beholden to the environmentalist agenda, a radical agenda that wholly disregards America's economy. Oblivious to prices at the pump and indifferent to from whom we import our oil, far-left environmentalists and their cohorts in Congress are failing their duty to the American public. The Congress has stymied efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevented the construction of new refineries, new powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities. This is bad policy. America's economy may be struggling, but despite hard times, American businesses and consumers still demand energy. In oil alone, we consume over 20 million barrels a day. Since we only produce over 8 million barrels a day, the gap must be made up by purchasing oil from hostile and undemocratic nations such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria to meet our energy needs. We spend over half a trillion dollars each year importing foreign oil and it is far past time to rectify this unhealthy dependency. The global price for petroleum reaches new highs every day and petroleum-related import have caused our trade deficit to increase by billions of dollar, According to a study by the Congressional Research Service in 2005 and 2006 alone, our trade deficit rose by $120 billion. As oil prices continue to rise and domestic energy production is further obstructed, America's trade balance will only fall deeper into the red. As a senator from energy rich Colorado, I am on the front lines of the battle to increase our domestic energy production. The Democrats continue to delay efforts to tap into a natural gas reserve below the Naval Oil Shale Reserve--often referred to as the Roan Plateau--that contains approximately 8.9 trillion cubic feet. We need this clean source of energy now. Moreover, below the vast lands of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming lies roughly 1.5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. This amount dwarfs the reserves of Arabia and other petro-rich nations and new technologies that are continually emerging would allow us to responsibly extract this oil to help meet our demands. The benefits to Colorado and the American economy would be tremendous. Something else that I don't believe we're talking enough about is the economics of this. Colorado, just like every other state is trying to find a way to pay for the many responsibilities and priorities set by the state legislature. Taxpayers are tapped out and there are still shortfalls. I would think that an infusion from a steady income source would be welcome. The BLM estimate that Federal royalties from production of natural gas within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve would be $857 million to $1.13 billion over the next 20 years. Because these royalties are split with the state we are talking about--probably conservatively--$400 to $500 million going to Colorado. I think our school districts benefits from that kind of money. I think that local police forces, fire departments, hospitals, roads and other state and community services benefit from that kind of money. I think the taxpayer benefits from that kind of money. All of us here also know that national environmentalist groups have succeeded in pressuring members of Congress to mandate a lock down of what could be an immense treasure chest of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Not only have these groups subverted the widespread local support of Alaskans by prohibiting the potential extraction of oil, environmentalists stubbornly resist even moving forward with comprehensive testing that could result in the environmentally responsible development of parts of the ANWR. There could be 5 to 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil there. There could also be much more, or much less. The point is we do not know because extremist environmentalists have convinced their friends in the House and the Senate to prevent us from finding that out. It makes one wonder what they are afraid we might find. Moving to another part of the country, in April, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that 3 to 4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil exists below North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation. This is 25 times more than what was estimated to exist in 1995. These numbers are staggering and there are other examples where our aversion to responsible development defies common sense. Of course, we must continue our dedicated efforts to explore alternative sources of energy to meet our demand. We have long advocated for a more diversified energy portfolio. But I do believe it is possible to develop sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, extract natural gas from the Rocky Mountains west and harvest resources in economically feasible ways that also protect our natural wonders. We should not take increased production of any domestic energy source off the table. The longer we completely deny access to domestic supply, the more we exacerbate our current energy shortages. Possibly most concerning to me is the fact that the less we are able to produce our own energy sources, the more we will rely on foreign and possibly hostile sources for it. We cannot solve the problem of soaring gas prices facing Americans today with any one solution, but we certainly should not allow the relentless push or environmentalists' narrow agenda to make this crisis even worse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to wrap up my comments.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, here we go again. We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more and more clear the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the seemingly endless upward pressure on energy prices. Given their unyielding desire to increase taxes on much of the energy industry, I can only assume the Democrats in Congress believe that steadily increasing energy prices simply provide political fodder upon which they can capitalize. Democrats in both Chambers appear beholden to the environmental agenda, a radical agenda that wholly disregards America's economy. Oblivious to prices at the pump and indifferent to from whom we import our oil, far-left environmentalists and their cohorts in Congress are failing in their duty to the American public. The Congress has stymied efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevented the construction of new refineries, nuclear powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities through public policies that limit energy supply. We cannot afford to take any option off the table. The security concerns of America and our businesses and consumers still demand energy. In oil alone, we consume over 20 million barrels a day. Since we only produce just over 8 million barrels per day, the gap must be made up by purchasing oil from hostile or undemocratic nations, such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria to meet our energy needs. We spend over half a trillion dollars each year importing foreign oil, and it is far past time to rectify this unhealthy dependency. The global price for petroleum reaches new highs every day and petroleum-related imports have caused our trade deficit to increase by billions of dollars. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in 2005 and 2006 alone, our trade deficit rose by $120 billion. As oil prices continue to rise and domestic energy production is further obstructed, America's trade balance will only fall deeper into the red. As a Senator from energy rich Colorado, I am on the front lines of the battle to increase our domestic energy production. The Democrats continue to delay efforts to tap into a natural gas reserve below the Naval Oil Shale Reserve, often referred to as the Roan Plateau, that contains approximately 8.9 trillion cubic feet. We need this clean source of energy now. Moreover, below the vast lands of Colorado and Wyoming lies roughly 1.5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. This amount dwarfs the reserves of Saudi Arabia and other petro-rich nations, and new technologies continually emerging would allow us to responsibly extract this oil to help meet our demands. The benefits to Colorado and the American economy would be tremendous. Additionally, national environmentalist groups have succeeded in pressuring Members of Congress to mandate a lock-down of what could be an immense treasure chest of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In subverting the widespread local support of Alaskans and in prohibiting the potential extraction of 5 to 15 billion barrels of oil, environmentalists stubbornly resist even moving forward with comprehensive testing that could result in the environmentally responsible development of parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Geological Survey announced this month that 3 to 4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil exists under North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation. This is 25 times more than was estimated to exist in 1995. These numbers are staggering, and there are other examples where our aversion to responsible development defies common sense. Of course, we must continue our dedicated efforts to explore alternative sources of energy to meet our demands, but it is possible to develop sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, extract natural gas from the Rocky Mountain west and harvest resources offshore in economically feasible ways and also protect our natural wonders. We should not take increased production of any domestic oil off the table. The longer we completely deny access to domestic supplies, the more we exacerbate our current energy shortages. We cannot solve the problem of soaring gas prices facing America today with one solution, but we certainly should not allow the relentless push of environmentalists' narrow agenda to make this crisis even worse. What will the average gallon of gas in America have to cost for the Democratic leadership in Congress to step to the plate with a comprehensive solution for our consumers? We should seek to develop our renewable resources along with oil, gas, clean coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy in a manner that prevents foreign interests from taking over energy for their own purposes. It is time for congressional leaders to be a part of the solution and not the problem. It is time to put every idea on the table. It is time for common sense. In the State of Colorado, we have a plethora of energy sources. We obviously rely on renewable energy because we have lots of sun and wind, we have hydroelectric, we have uranium to produce nuclear power. None of these or our rich resources in petroleum and coal that exist throughout the country should be taken off the table. For us to subject ourselves to a harsh extreme environmental agenda does not make sense. This country should continue to work to develop all of those resources. Obviously, the future of this country is on the renewable side, but we have to deal with today's problems, today's price at the gas pump, and therefore we need to produce domestic resources in addition to supporting the renewable technologies we are currently developing. If we do that, we will most successfully address the high cost at the gas pump today. Congress should be working with industry to make sure we have more plentiful supplies of gas and petroleum products in addition to developing other sources of renewable energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on April 29, 1958, the District Court in Pueblo, CO, established the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. That action resulted in a firm water supply for the Arkansas River Basin, providing much-needed supplemental water to communities which are home to the wonderful people of this region. The Arkansas River Basin includes communities whose livelihoods have always depended on water: farming, ranching, steel manufacturing, small businesses. The economic tide in this region has ebbed and flowed during that 50-year period, but its riches lie not in dollars but in its people. The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District has served the region and people honorably and with diligence. The district works hard to help the Arkansas Valley realize the importance and value of a well- managed water supply. Currently, the district is spearheading a plan to at last construct the Arkansas Valley Conduit, originally authorized as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The conduit was deemed necessary five decades ago, and the need for clean and safe water supplies for the people of the valley has only increased as water quality is threatened and federally acceptable standards have increased. But the Lower Arkansas Valley, which this project will serve, needs assistance in providing that safe water supply and in meeting those standards. This Arkansas Valley Conduit is a top priority to me as I near the end of my tenure in the Senate. As one of the final components of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and as a major goal of the now 50-year-old Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, I congratulate the district on their hard work to make this project feature a reality, and thank them for all they have accomplished in their half century of commitment to the Arkansas Valley.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that I speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to the hard-working men and women of our great country; that is, tax reform. I believe the Federal tax burden is excessive and overly intrusive. Reform of the IRS and the current tax system is long overdue. If our Democratic colleagues have their way, the Tax Code will continue to be excessive and overly intrusive. In recent years it has become abundantly clear to me that we have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund our Government. In its current application, the U.S. tax system distorts the economic decisions of families, of businesses, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources and hindering economic growth. Our tax system has become unstable and unpredictable. Frequent changes to the Tax Code have caused volatility that is harmful to the economy and creates additional compliance costs. The tax system was originally intended to be an efficient and simple system designed to raise revenues for our national defense, social programs, and vital Government services. However, the current tax system is now so complex that approximately $150 billion is spent each year by taxpayers and the Federal Government to make sure that taxes are tallied and paid correctly. This is an enormous expense and a waste of resources. At present, the United States has instituted a tax system that thwarts basic economic decisions, punishes wise and productive investments, and rewards those who work less and borrow more. As it stands, the quagmire that is our existing Tax Code penalizes savings, contributes to the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, and undermines our global competitiveness. More disturbing is the fact that Americans spend more than 3.5 billion hours doing their taxes, which is the equivalent of hiring almost 2 million new IRS employees; more than 20 times the agency's current workforce, I might add. On average, Americans spend the equivalent of more than half of one work week; that is, 26 hours, on their taxes each year, not to mention the amount of time they work to pay the taxes themselves. At the end of the day, despite our lengthy codified tax law, there is no evidence to suggest that Americans know how much they should be paying in taxes in any given year or why. Our Tax Code should aspire to be clear and transparent, rather than multifarious and convoluted. Everyone should be able to have a basic understanding of the Tax Code, knowing how and why they are taxed. The Tax Code's constant phase-ins and phase-outs are a nuisance at best and a negative force, at worst, in the daily economic lives of American families and businesses. Moreover, taxpayers with the same incomes, family situation, and other key characteristics often face different tax burdens. This differing treatment creates a perception of unfairness in the Tax Code and has left many Americans discouraged. At present, how much or little taxpayers pay in taxes is sometimes dependent on where they happen to live and the choices made by their employers. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, a true visionary in this area, signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced top marginal individual rates from 50 percent to 28 percent, increased the standard deduction, and reduced the top corporate tax from 50 percent to 34 percent. In doing so, this reform act simplified the Tax Code, broadening the income tax base, allowing for lower marginal rates, and curtailing the use of individual tax shelters. While the 1986 act was a step in the right direction, unfortunately, it did not produce a long-lasting transformation of our tax system. Today, our tax system bears little resemblance to the simple low-rate system promised by the 1986 reform. This is due to constant tweaking over the years. More than 100 different acts of Congress have made nearly 15,000 changes to the Tax Code. Public opinion polls indicate that Americans believe taxpayers should not have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to the Government. The current Tax Code hardly reflects this perspective. Depending on the level of income, the amount of deductions, and the type of family, one's income can be taxed at 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, or 35 percent. I support broad-based tax reform and a simplified tax system. It is my belief that any reform to the current tax system should benefit the middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are the middle class, and they have borne the burden of the current system. While I was a member of the Colorado Legislature, we implemented a 5- percent flat tax for Colorado. I believe we should take a similar approach on the Federal level. While I would be willing to consider a flat tax or a sales tax or other plans on the Federal level, it is important that any replacement plan be simple and fair. The replacement system must provide tax relief for working Americans. It must protect the rights of taxpayers and reduce our collection abuse. But most importantly, a new system must eliminate the bias against savings and investment and against economic growth and job creation. No one can deny that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Its complexity, lack of clarity, unfairness, and disproportionate influence on behavior has caused great frustration. Our current Tax Code has been shaped by goals other than simplicity, by intentions other than helping the taxpayer plan ahead, and by objectives other than expanding our economy. Not only has it failed to keep pace with our economy, frequent changes have made it unstable and unpredictable. Years of hodgepodge Government interference and ad hoc meddling have left our Tax Code in shambles. While we cannot change the past, we can learn valuable lessons from the same and remedy our mistakes. If we do not take steps to immediately simplify and reform the Tax Code, it will become more complex, more unfair, and less conducive to our economy's future growth. Small reforms are not enough. A total overhaul of the existing system is the only chance we have of righting this wrong and getting our economy and our deficit back on track. Raising taxes is not an option. Our Democratic colleagues seem to believe that raising taxes or doing nothing about taxes is the best policy. Just last month, Democrats proposed raising taxes on the average American family by $2,300 per year. Earlier this year, Democrats passed a proposal calling for the largest tax hike in history. If Democrats continue down this path of tax increases and a do-nothing tax policy, more and more American families will suffer. It is important to point out that to do nothing on the Tax Code means a tax increase is going to happen within the next several years. A do- nothing policy on taxes will allow for the expiration of several key tax provisions. It will further the reach of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. We will see a tax increase of more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. At a time of economic uncertainty, raising taxes and taking money out of the pockets of the American people should not be the goal of the Congress. We must act now. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the Nation to resolve the predicament the current tax system has put us in. If we do not act sooner rather than later in reforming our tax system, it will continue to become more complex and cumbersome. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 4519 offered by my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. This amendment mandates a 1 percent across-the-board redirection of funds each year from all amounts appropriated to programs in this bill for the sole and specific purpose of removing assets--mostly old buildings and facilities--from Park Service operated lands that are determined to be surplus to need. This 1 percent ``off the top'' charge has the effect of setting the disposal of National Park Service surplus assets above all other programs that are in this bill. In essence, it ties the hands of the appropriations committee to determine what amounts should be devoted to the disposal of Park Service surplus facilities each year. Also, there is no connection between the wide variety of programs and projects that are in this public lands bill, and would be assessed this 1 percent charge, and the need to remove old buildings from parks. Put simply, this amendment does not make good sense. As the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Park Service, I simply can't support such a proposal. It is up to the Appropriations Committee to review the agency's budget each year and set the appropriate funding levels for the various activities of the Service, including the disposal of surplus facilities. Budget priorities change each year based on many factors, including the shifting needs of the agencies and the amount of money we have to work with under the budgetary caps set by Congress. That is why we have an annual appropriations process to weigh these variables. To transfer 1 percent of funds appropriated under this act for one purpose forevermore takes away the Appropriation Committee's discretion, and indeed, its obligation to set priorities each year for the needs of our Nation's parks. Last year, the Interior subcommittee provided the National Park Service nearly $1 billion to address maintenance and construction needs. I believe these funds are sufficient to allow the Park Service to address the most critical maintenance requirements including the removal of unneeded assets. I urge my colleagues to support the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee and oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, homeownership has long been the American dream, and over the last decade record numbers of families have been able to achieve the dream of homeownership. Unfortunately, too many homeowners now find themselves in mortgages they can't afford. Many of them knowingly or unknowingly took out exotic mortgages that made wildly unrealistic assumptions about the housing market; namely, that housing values would continue to dramatically increase. As we all now know, home price growth was unsustainable. Unfortunately, too many families are now facing the possibility of foreclosure. Just as ownership brings many benefits to families and neighborhoods, foreclosures have dramatic negative consequences for both individual homeowners and the economy as a whole. We have seen a rapid increase in the number of foreclosures, and many experts predict that the number will continue to climb in the near future. Obviously, this creates great hardships for the families facing this possibility. Accordingly, Congress is currently considering various proposals to help prevent foreclosures. As part of any proposal, though, I think we must be careful not to reward irresponsible behavior. Borrowers have a responsibility to understand the terms of their loan, and lenders have a responsibility to provide them with clear, accurate information in order to help them understand the terms. Borrowers have a responsibility to only borrow what they can repay, but lenders have a responsibility to only lend to those who can repay. Should Congress choose to provide relief, it should not do so in a manner that is simply a ``bail out'' for either lenders or borrowers who acted irresponsibly. We should also not set a broad precedent that the Government will simply bail people out whenever they lose money or face tough times in the housing market. Financial investments involve both risk and reward, and contracts are legal documents; we need to reinforce accountability amongst all parties for these elements. I also believe that any efforts to address foreclosures should be done in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. Any effort to provide foreclosure relief must carefully address any risk to taxpayers. As part of the housing package before the Senate, we are considering an amendment which would give bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgage contracts after the fact. The bankruptcy modification provision would undermine the recovery of the housing market and the economy by creating a credit crunch: It would have a negative impact in the financial markets, making it difficult to value mortgages that underlay securities. The provision will discourage securitization, and securitization encourages homeownership. Securitization frees up capital to go back into making more mortgages. Approximately 84 percent of primary home mortgages are securitized; however, looking at second homes, where the mortgage can be modified in bankruptcy, we see that only 9 percent are securitized. Justice Stevens of the Supreme Court reiterated in the Nobleman case that ``the favorable treatment of residential mortgagees was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market.'' The cramdown amendment would significantly increase the cost of homeownership: This provision will inject risk into the lending process. Whether the other side likes it or not, the markets will price to this risk by increasing the cost of mortgages for primary residences in the form of higher interest rates, down payments, points and fees. It is a basic tenant of the free markets that more risk requires a risk premium. Even the Congressional Budget Office noted in a recent report that one of the costs of the bill ``would be higher mortgage interest rates.'' Estimates are that the provision will increase mortgage interest rates by 1.5 percent to 2 percent. Assuming an increase of 1.5 percent, for a Colorado family with an average sized loan--$184,362-- their monthly mortgage payment would increase by $184. For those families who can still afford a home, it will cost them anywhere from $23,000, in rural areas, to well over $500,000, in many metropolitan suburbs, in extra interest over the life of a 30-year mortgage. That money should be used for bills, their children's education, or other expenses. The other side likes to claim that the talk of increased interest rates is little more than a scare tactic. They couldn't be more wrong. These effects are not merely a hypothetical. We have seen the effects in a real life case example: secondary homes. A bankruptcy judge can currently change the balance on a mortgage for a second home. As a result of this, the cost of buying a second home is higher--interest rates, down-payment, shorter repayment period--than a primary home. Title IV will increase the cost of buying a primary home similar to the cost of buying a second home. The bankruptcy provision would have a price far too high: Every quarter point increase in mortgage interest rates will prevent 1.1 million Americans from being able to afford a home. This provision could price homes out of reach for 9 million Americans. Those advocating for this ill-advised provision have estimated that it could help as many as 600,000 families, although more realistic estimates put this number closer to only 15,000. We can surely find a better way to help a small number of families than to deny homeownership to 9 million families and increase costs for millions more. Quite simply, the cost for this provision, in terms of what it will mean for families, is far too high. Congress shouldn't be forcing families into bankruptcy for mortgage relief. The bankruptcy amendment is bad policy: The provision would reopen the bankruptcy code and would undo the 2005 requirement for prebankruptcy counseling. Senator Durbin's proposal would grant new powers to bankruptcy judges to change the terms of primary mortgages. Judges have little, if any, expertise in the complexity in mortgage terms. The bankruptcy code is not the right area to address the subprime issues and mortgage markets. The Senate Banking Committee, the House Financial Services Committee, Federal banking regulators, and industry are all working. These are the appropriate areas. The bankruptcy provision will discourage other alternatives: It will undermine efforts to put the two parties to the mortgage contract together. Borrowers must file for bankruptcy in order for the proposed changes to work. The HOPE NOW Alliance has helped more than a million homeowners through workouts and repayment plans. In Colorado, the Foreclosure Hotline received thousands of calls and has been able to help 80 percent who called. The hotlines are not perfect, and they cannot help all borrowers, but they are helping many. The 1 million plus families helped didn't have to pay a bankruptcy attorney; they didn't have to deal with the long-term problems caused by filing for bankruptcy; the Federal Government didn't have to spend taxpayer dollars. That is a far better approach. Drying up the credit markets and making loan terms less favorable will make it far more difficult for homeowners to refinance their loans, thus creating new problems where none existed previously. I know that many families are hurting from foreclosures, but this amendment isn't the right approach, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Major Perry Jefferson. On April 3, 1969, Major Jefferson was an aerial observer on board an O-1G Bird Dog observation aircraft conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Ninh Thuan Province of Vietnam when the aircraft crashed. After an extensive search, Major Jefferson's body was not recovered and he was subsequently listed Missing in Action. However, in 2001, after 32 years, a Vietnamese national turned over remains that were identified to be that of Major Jefferson. Today, Major Jefferson was finally laid to rest in our nation's most hallowed grounds in a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. While growing up in Colorado, Major Jefferson developed a love for geology, wilderness and the mines of Colorado; so much so, that his code word was Geneva Creek, after a tributary of the North Fork South Platte River in central Colorado. A graduate of Southern Methodist University, Major Jefferson joined the Colorado Air National Guard as a technician and intelligence officer with the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron when it was mobilized to Vietnam in 1968. Major Jefferson was a committed patriot. While in Vietnam, he served his Nation with great distinction. Major Jefferson embodies the spirit and character of Colorado, and I commend his service and sacrifice. The return of his remains brings closure to his family and friends. I am grateful to have this opportunity and I hope that the 96,000 Americans missing and unaccounted for while serving their country will eventually receive a similar honor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 310th Space Wing, which was officially activated on Friday, March 7, 2008. This newly created wing is comprised of 16 subordinate units located at Colorado's Schriever AFB, Peterson AFB, and Buckley AFB, as well as Vandenberg AFB, CA. This wing is an expansion of the 310th Space Group, currently based at Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs, CO. Over the last 15 years the outstanding members of the 310th Space Group have played a critical role in space operations, providing unrivaled support in operating and defending our space systems. This expansion is a testament to both their performance and mission, while also reinforcing my belief that space is a vital component to fighting and winning our nation's wars. The 310th's history dates back to World War II when it began as the 310th Bombardment Group on March 15, 1942. The unit flew B-25 ``Mitchell'' bombers in support of operations in Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Sardinia, France, Austria, and Yugoslavia. During those campaigns, the 310th perfected ``skip bombing'' techniques against bridges, airborne, and rail yard targets. Developed to allow aviators to come into the target area low and fast to avoid deadly anti-aircraft fire, the bombs actually ``skipped'' over the surface of the water in a manner similar to skipping a stone and either bounced into the side of, or exploded over the target, proving extremely effective. The 310th was reactivated 1997, as the 310th Space Group, and rapidly grew to meet the Air Force Reserve's expanding role in space operations. As the cochairman of the Congressional Space Power Caucus and a Coloradoan, I am extremely proud of the 310th and all who serve in it and congratulate them on their success in becoming a wing.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. On the Allard amendment, it will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. Many States' definition of coverage for a pregnant woman leads to the strange legal fiction that the adult pregnant woman is a child. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term ``child'' includes the period from conception to birth and will not include a pregnant woman in the definition of a child. I ask for an ``aye'' vote. This is a pro-life vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up the Allard amendment.

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

Mr. ALLARD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.