Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate will decide shortly what path to take on the pending asbestos liability legislation, otherwise known as the Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, more frequently referred to simply as the FAIR Act. This bill has inspired very strong sentiments from many Americans. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am deeply sympathetic to those who have suffered severe medical consequences from exposure to asbestos. I am somewhat less sympathetic to those who may seek compensation without demonstrating a medical impact on their lives. While the number of mesothelioma claims has remained relatively steady at about 2,000 claims a year for the last 10 years, over 100,000 cases were filed in 2003. According to the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, mesothelioma victims receive only 17 percent of compensation awards, compared to 65 percent for nonmalignant claimants. On top of that, trial lawyers may charge fees as high as 40 percent plus litigation expenses. The result of less justifiable lawsuits is many real victims are denied compensation for actual injuries. To date, 67 companies have been bankrupted and more than 60,000 Americans have lost their jobs as a direct result of asbestos liability. Clearly, we have a problem in this country. I followed the numerous Senate hearings held on this issue and I have met with numerous Coloradans with a variety of perspectives. I met with those who lost loved ones to mesothelioma, those who have lost jobs due to asbestos litigation, and those who are curtailing their manufacturing operations in Colorado in anticipation of continued claims. The complexities of this issue are tremendous. I compliment my colleagues, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the majority leader, for their work to date on this issue. Beyond the FAIR Act, general litigation and litigation reform have been major topics of concern this session in the Senate. Last October, the Senate focused on the Class Action Fairness Act. When a plaintiff's injury is not worth enough to justify a legal suit to recover damages, individuals similarly affected can combine damages for one lawsuit against a common defendant. In recent years, driven largely by a few unscrupulous attorneys, there has been an explosion in class action litigation. Our economy bears an enormous burden due to this explosion of litigation. Unfortunately, much of that burden is carried by consumers. Specific to these suits, these abuses of the system, the consumer is often left out in the rain once there is a settlement. Attorneys can make millions, while the plaintiffs are often left with nothing more than a coupon for a service they were denied in the first place. Like so many things designed to protect consumers and ensure fair and just restitution, the tool of class action has been manipulated. Far too often, that manipulation has yielded tremendous wealth for attorneys driving these actions and little or nothing for the consumers initially harmed. The Center for Legal Policy recently reported from 1997 to 2000 United States firms saw a 300-percent increase in Federal class actions and a 1,000-percent spike in State class actions. The end result, as we will see, is an increase in litigation, thus an increase in the cost of doing business and higher costs passed along to the consumer. There are, in fact, a plethora of abuses that have contributed to the generation of this legislation in the Senate. Nothing in the class action bill denied a consumer a right to make valid claims. This point cannot be stressed enough. Our legal system has functioned under this guiding principle for generations. We will do nothing in this Chamber to challenge that principle. There are those in this body who see this bill differently. There are those in this body who can look at the class action brought against Blockbuster Video where attorneys will collect a little less than $10 million and class members will get coupons toward future video rentals and say this is justice. This case, and cases like it, are representative of the systematic denial of valid claims by class members and it is incumbent upon us to rectify this situation. One such tool at our disposal is increased oversight of such settlements. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, envisioned problems like this. The Constitution was drafted explicitly to provide for Federal jurisdiction over all lawsuits between the citizens of different States. These cases involving parties of diverse citizenship have evolved into what we see today as national types of litigation or big-dollar suits against large companies engaged in interstate commerce. Over time, Congress has more narrowly defined constitutional diversity and created a requirement that all plaintiffs be diverse from all defendants. The result today is venue shopping, attorneys seeking favorable State courts through which to pursue an action that is national in scope. The Founders knew such nebulous venue requirements could lead to local biases in cases of broad significance and we have, unfortunately, arrived at that point. The Constitution provides for Federal jurisdiction over citizens of different States so local bias will never become an issue. National, multimillion-dollar suits should not be barred from Federal courts. The egregious practice of venue shopping flies in the face of the Founders' intent. Class actions are a valuable part of the legal system. Recent abuses and a shift in the benefits of an action from class members and toward attorneys should not signal the end of access to appropriate legal recourse. The system as it exists today is untenable. Medical liability has become another increasingly important matter on a national scale. In February, the Senate debated the Patient Crisis/ Access to Care Act. Skyrocketing medical liability premiums have translated directly to physicians limiting services, retiring early, or moving out of the State--one State to another--to escape escalating costs of liability insurance. This cost is deeply felt and extends well beyond the physician- patient relationship. Emergency departments are losing staff and scaling back critical services, even trauma units. OB/GYNs and family doctors have stopped delivering babies, and all too often high-risk procedures--for example, neurosurgery--are postponed because surgeons cannot find or afford insurance. The result is a serious threat to patient access to care. Twenty-six percent of health care institutions have cut back services or eliminated patient care units. Seventy-eight percent of Americans fear that skyrocketing medical liability costs will limit access to care even further. If we look at the root of this problem, we see that median medical liability awards have increased 43 percent in 1 year from $700,000 in 1999 to more than $1 million in the year 2000. In 2001, malpractice insurers paid $1.53 in claims and costs for every $1 received in revenue. This system is not sustainable and will not serve those Americans in need of better health care. We are suit happy. At some point Americans stopped bargaining and negotiating in good faith. At some point we became less concerned with justice and more focused on assigning blame. More than assigning blame, we now assign dollar amounts to virtually every major, minor, and perceived slight. We live in a country where family disputes are settled in court. Mr. President, at the risk of sounding too folksy, people where I come from, where I was raised, simply do not see it this way. If this body does nothing else today, we should commit to an overall effort to recast our approach to the judicial system--a system that has grown obese and focused on greed rather than justice. These are just a few examples of the cost of continued and increased litigation and the importance of reform. The FAIR Act, which faces a cloture vote later today, marks another attempt to deal with a pressing national issue. It is clear, however, that the FAIR Act will not be permitted to come to an up-or-down vote in the Senate. A variety of important bills have been effectively defeated before they have ever come to an up-or-down vote in this body. Parliamentary tricks and filibuster by the Democrats have jammed numerous issues. The following examples should clearly illustrate this obstruction. The JOBS bill would both repeal a European tariff on nearly 100 American-made products and cut taxes for manufacturers in the United States. Although the JOBS bill passed the Finance Committee 19 to 2 and enjoys broad, bipartisan support, Democrats voted to block a vote on the measure in March. The medical liability legislation I discussed--patients across America are denied critical health care, including emergency and obstetric care, because doctors and hospitals are closing their doors from skyrocketing liability costs. Opponents blocked a comprehensive, bipartisan bill in July of 2003. In February of 2004, Senate Democrats again blocked an effort to protect women's access to obstetric and gynecological care. That was S. 2207. The energy bill--a comprehensive energy bill would deliver nearly 1 million American jobs, increase renewable and alternative sources of energy, and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. This bill has been blocked in the Senate for 3 years, including a provision to open ANWR and dramatically reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and create hundreds of thousands of more American jobs. The Workforce Investment Act is projected to help more than 940,000 dislocated workers get the training they need to get good jobs. It was passed by both the House and the Senate--I might add unanimously in the Senate. Senate Democrats now refuse to appoint conferees so that the bill can become law. Judges--the unprecedented, unconstitutional challenge to the Senate's advise-and-consent role continues. A minority of Democrats have prevented six highly qualified Federal appeals court nominees from receiving a fair, up-or-down confirmation vote and are threatening to use partisan filibusters to prevent confirmation of additional judges. If given an up-or-down vote, all these nominees would be serving on the bench today. The class action legislation I mentioned would create a consumer bill of rights to ensure that victims are not denied fair compensation while their trial lawyers escape with the lion's share of court awards. On October 22, 2003, Senate Republicans and nine Democrats came one vote short of overcoming the Democrat leadership's parliamentary obstruction. Faith-based/charities legislation passed the Senate on April 9, 2003, with overwhelming bipartisan support, 95 to 5, and similar legislation resoundingly passed the House on September 17, but the Democrat leadership is blocking a conference committee to resolve House-Senate differences and even allow a final vote. The CARE Act will spur more charitable giving and assist faith-based organizations and community charities. Welfare reform--on April 1, 2004, Senate Democrats voted to block a measure to reauthorize the landmark 1996 welfare reforms. H.R. 4 would build on the successes of the 1996 reforms to strengthen work requirements and promote healthy families, as well as provide an additional $6 billion in childcare funding. It is time to move forward with an agenda in the Senate. I think it is time for us to put aside the partisan politics we are experiencing in the Senate today and move forward with, I think, very important legislation. I talked about some of that: liability reform, that affects both class actions as well as medical care; trying to ensure that we have voluntarism. Welfare reform has been extremely successful. Yet we find that obstructed in the Senate. I hope, even though this is a Presidential year, and many of us are not surprised by some of the Presidential politics, that the Democrats will seek to cooperate more with the Republican majority so we can move forward with the agenda in the Senate. There is a terrible cost being exacted for our delinquency on these matters. Every day the outlook for health care, the burden of an un- reformed tort system run amuck, and opportunities for America's small businesses grows increasingly difficult. I pledge to work with my colleagues on each of these issues, some of which I support and others which I may not, but I will work with colleagues to see that each bill receives a fair up and down vote. Our constituents deserve better than to watch while the legislative process is held hostage for the political or ideological desires of a few members of this body. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield back my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes. I would like to speak about my trip to Iraq and Afghanistan and welcome home the Bravo Company of Fort Carson, CO.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts with my colleagues about the courageous heroism being shown by our men and women in uniform deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the second day of my visit to Iraq and Afghanistan last month, I had the opportunity to meet with a staff sergeant who was a reservist from Denver, CO. Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he had a great family life, good-paying job, and much happiness in his life. Yet when President Bush ordered our men and women in uniform to prepare and eventually rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, the staff sergeant's unit, the 324th Tactical PsyOps Company, was mobilized and deployed to Iraq. When I met with this brave soldier, his unit had been deployed for over a year in Iraq and was expected to spend at least another 3 months in the country. Yet to my surprise, this staff sergeant did not complain about the lengthy deployment, nor did he complain about missing his family or express any worry about losing his job. Instead, he spoke of the importance of his mission and how much of a difference he and the rest of our forces were making in Iraq. He said the United States did the right thing in liberating Iraq from Saddam's tyranny, and not a day goes by when at least one Iraqi doesn't thank him personally for freeing their country. His only request was for me to contact his wife and thank her for supporting him, a great sacrifice, over these many months. This was the least I could do to repay him for his brave service to our Nation. During that conversation, I could not have been more proud of or more thankful for our men and women in uniform. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in their early 20s, and some have never been outside the United States. Others have seen combat before and are struggling with the long deployment away from their families. But every soldier I spoke with made it clear they are dedicated to their mission and committed to defeating extremists that seek to return that land to a rein of terror. I am especially proud of those Coloradans who have confronted our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Carson, CO returned after being deployed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq for over a year. They fought multiple battles with extremists and overcame numerous hardships during the course of their assignment. I commend the Third ACR for their service and welcome them home. I would also like to acknowledge the 10th Special Forces Group, also stationed at Fort Carson, for their ongoing contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Units from the 10th Special Forces Group continue to serve in Iraq and continue to make me and the rest of Colorado very proud. As we in Colorado celebrate the return of thousands of troops, we should not forget those who lost their lives on the battlefield. More than 50 men who were either from or stationed in Colorado have made the ultimate sacrifice. The families who have lost loved ones deserve special honor. Our thoughts and prayers have been with them as we all remember the sacrifices their sons and daughters have made for the security of our Nation. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to welcome home the Bravo Company of the 244th Engineering Battalion. Bravo Company is stationed in Fort Collins, CO, and the community's response to these men and women returning was truly heartening. Equally as encouraging were the remarks shared to me from the members of the Bravo Company. These professional soldiers want to succeed in Iraq, their morale is high, and are proud of the time they devoted to the reconstruction of Iraq. The Bravo Company's mission in Iraq was to help provide infrastructure. This consisted of things such as sanitation facilities, electric utilities, water utilities, as well as highways. They also helped in other ways with construction of hospitals and schools during their deployment. They shared their feelings with me that they felt they were really serving a need there. They were proud of their opportunity to serve over in Iraq. Obviously, they were glad to return home, but many of them were very, very happy about having an opportunity to serve the country in a valuable way. The point of emphasis shared with me by these soldiers is that it is imperative the American people continue to stand firmly behind our troops deployed overseas. This is not the time for grandstanding by drawing parallels between this military action and the Vietnam War. In fact, those distortions run counter to the strong support that the American public still has for completing the job in Iraq. This is not an issue of people not supporting our Armed Forces, because I know that every Member in this body supports our troops, regardless of personal beliefs about the rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The issue is our support to stay the course for a struggling democracy; one that can bring freedom not only to the Iraqis, but perhaps to the Middle East. The United States will be defined by our response to the terrorists and despots that want to see Iraq return to chaos and dictatorship. The efforts of units like Colorado's 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, the 10th Special Forces Group, and 244th Engineering Battalion have helped to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq after decades of terror. A free Iraq is a historic opportunity to change the world. By demonstrating our commitment to not only rid Iraq of terrorists but also improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis, we show the world that America is still the torchbearer for liberty. Our soldiers understand the challenges, and they want Americans to help them face the challenge and support their efforts. Meeting these men and women reminded me of a statement that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, told the Armed Services Committee last year. He said that we would win in Iraq as long as we have the continuing will of the American people. I believe that Americans still have the will to win, especially the men and women in uniform who I have met. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me the time to praise some of my brave fellow Coloradans. I will continue to spread the word from the soldiers that while even in the gravest of situations, they understand the importance of what the United States is trying to accomplish in Iraq. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the recent achievement of the University of Denver Hockey Team. On April 10, 2004, on the frigid ice of a Boston arena, two champion caliber teams faced one another in what will go down in history as one of the most exciting nights in college sports history. On this particular evening the University of Denver Pioneers came out on top, defeating the Black Bears of Maine and winning the Men's NCAA Division One Championship. The University of Denver has a distinguished history of athletic excellence. While this is the university's sixth national title for hockey, it is the first since 1969. The title game itself was decided by the narrowest of margins, a one- goal-to-none victory for DU. Pioneer forward Gabe Gauthier scored the games only goal on an assist from forward Connor James. Among its many outstanding scholar athletes the University of Denver can boast of senior goalie Adam Berkhoel, MVP of the Frozen Four championship round and one of college hockey's brightest stars. These outstanding individual efforts can not eclipse the most distinct aspect of the title game, the perfect team play exhibited by the Pioneers. Denver spent most of the last 2 minutes of the game down two players and fighting off an attack by six Maine players with only three defenders between the Black Bears and the Pioneer goalie. Never have 2 minutes of hockey seemed longer; never have 2 minutes of hockey ended more sweetly. At the helm of the University of Denver hockey team is coach George Gwozdecky. Coach Gwozdecky came to DU in 1994 and has compiled an impressive record of 196-140-26 with the Pioneers. This year Coach Gwozdecky was named runner-up Division One Coach of the Year, an honor I know he shares with his dedicated staff. Today I share my congratulations with the entire University of Denver community. Such an outstanding and rare achievement as a national title reflects the hard work and dedication of many people. Congratulations to all the DU Pioneers. Congratulations to Chancellor Daniel Ritchie, Provost Bob Coombe, President Mark Holtzman, Director of Athletics Dianne Murphy, Coach Gwozdecky and his staff, and especially the Pioneer players, students and fans. You have made us all very proud.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if I may enter into the colloquy, I was asked to make some comments this morning, and I will be glad to do that, but my time is flexible and I can speak just briefly on what has happened to the economy.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia and Mississippi for their comments. I want to talk a little bit about the economy. First of all, I want to point out this President inherited a bad economy. When he inherited this bad economy, he could have taken the old solution to all of our problems: You increase taxes and spending and somehow the other things are going to be better. He took a new approach. The new concept was you need to cut taxes. By cutting taxes, you are going to stimulate productivity and the economy is going to grow. So the President courageously stepped forward, got his tax package passed out of the House and the Senate. The major tax packages were in 2001 and 2003. We did some in other years. We did a little dribbling and working to reduce taxes. The fact is, by reducing taxes during a time when we had taxes at an all-time high, we have helped the economy. There is a lot of talk on the floor about how bad the economy has been, but that reaches back into the bad economy this President inherited when he moved into the Presidency. The President's tax package is now beginning to work. Look at the economic indicators put out by the Joint Economic Committee in February of 2004. We talk about the unemployment rate, and that is going down. Employment is going up. Wages are going up. We have a chart that shows real gross private domestic investment going up. Corporate profits are going up. We have another chart here that shows farm income is going up. We have sources of personal income. That is going up. Total output, income and spending, those are going up. Production and business activity is now going up. Common stocks, prices, and yields are all going up in response to the President's economic package. I went on the Internet this morning to see what was being said there: Consumer spending strong, and business investment rebounding. It had a chart showing how those factors were coming together. That is this morning. Then we see another chart that shows jobless claims continuing to trend downward. It shows an increase in the jobless rate at the time the President inherited this economy, and now we see, as his tax package has had an opportunity to go into effect, the jobless rate is going down. The President's package for stimulating our economy has worked. It would be a shame if we walked away from that and went back to the old solutions which were to increase spending and raise taxes. That is the wrong solution at the wrong time. The right solution is what the President has talked about. We need to cut taxes and spending in order that this economy continues to prosper, as we have seen in the figures from the last several months. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes and ask it be charged against the budget debate itself and not the amendment on the Republican side.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of discussion about how important eliminating the deficit is. I could not agree more. We do need to eliminate the deficit. The reason we have a deficit today is because this Senate has refused to make tough choices about spending. I make the point that when President Bush assumed office, he came into office when the economy was starting to move down. I don't think anybody can dispute that. When he took office, he was challenged as much as any President in recent history because not only was the economy turning down--and, I might add, with an unprecedented turndown of 2 to 3 years consecutively--but then on top of that we had the September 11 terrorist attack. We went to conflict in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. It has been a tough time for this President. Fortunately, this country has had strong leadership. Without that strong leadership, I would hate to imagine where we might be today. We look at the combination of all these events as having an impact on revenues coming into the Federal Government. They had an impact on spending. I have been a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, as have many Members of the Senate, but there has always been a provision in times of conflict that there would be an exception to balance the budget. This is one of those exceptions in time caused by the attack on September 11 against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Then we lost a plane in the Midwest. Heroic, Americans on that plane tried to take over that particular plane. So I think it is understandable why the Senate and the House would decide we need to appropriate some dollars to take care of this time of conflict. If we look back, the spending was probably the second most significant thing that contributed to our shortfall as far as eliminating the deficit. The most significant factor was the recession. An analysis has been made by the Joint Economic Committee that has indicated that at least 40 percent--and there are other estimates of at least 49 percent--of the deficit can be attributed to this unprecedented recession. Then, second in line is the amount of spending we have had, somewhere around 35 percent, if my memory serves me correctly. I might be off a few percentage points. And then somewhere around 25, 26, 27 percent--in that area--was attributed to the tax cuts we put in place. The problem has been basically the turndown in the economy and the amount of spending. I think it is all too easy to go ahead and criticize the tax cuts and ignore the major reasons as to why we are having a shortfall in the deficit. I happen to think the tax package we passed when the President was first elected, and then we came back and passed an economic stimulus package, and then last year we passed another package of tax cuts, really did stimulate the economy. We are going to have amendment after amendment on the floor saying we ought to increase spending and increase taxes. I think it is the wrong way to go. I think if we raise taxes, as our economy is showing signs of recovery, it sends the wrong message, and that later on this year we will find our economy still struggling and trying to work its way out of this economic downturn. But if we can sustain these tax cuts--in fact, even those that are expiring, if we go ahead and renew those, I think it will instill confidence in our economy and that we can expect it to continue to do well for the rest of the year. I think the American workers need a break. Frankly, they send a lot of money to Washington. The producers of this country send a lot of money to Washington. From our colleagues on the other side, we hear all about how they want to go ahead and tax the wealthy, the upper 10 percent or the upper 1 percent, and then provide some program of sustained spending that is never going to quit. It is going to continue to grow. If we look at our tax policy, we put taxes in on a temporary period of time--10 years most of them--and then they go away. In our spending programs, we put them in place, and they just seem to go on and on and on. If we look at what happens to those tax figures as we go out in time in the budget, and we look at what happens to the spending figures as we go out in time from this year, the spending increases at a greater rate than the cost from the tax cuts. In other words, if we were to spend an equal amount of money for tax cuts and an equal amount of money for one of the spending programs, as it moves out over time, there is a discrepancy that develops, and spending increases at a greater rate than what happens with the tax cut. I think it is something we need to do. I think it would be shameful if we abandoned the President's plan for economic growth, particularly when the economy is starting to recover. There are those who would argue they do not think the jobs are coming or growing as fast as they would like to see. I agree, we would all like to see the jobs grow faster, but the fact is we are getting job recovery. If we look at the household survey, for example, for a number of months now--close to 9 months--we have seen some phenomenal growth. Why is the household survey important? Because it measures small business. It measures individuals who are out producing on their own, or a few people are out producing on their own. There is no salary. They are all in together. They decide to start a company or provide a service. I am a veterinarian. A lot of them are veterinarians. They are a single-person practice. They are going out there and taking care of the needs of the community, and they are working and creating revenue for their family. They pay property taxes. They are supporting their community. But they never get counted, except in the household survey, because they may very well be operating out of their home. We have a plethora of small businesses that work that way. We have seen this growth. I think a good percentage of that growth has been so phenomenal that they are trying to come up with an explanation for it. Here is my conclusion. I think when we had the downturn in the high- tech sector of our economy, many of those individuals left their former employers with some kind of bonus when they separated, so they had this pocket full of cash. They did not have a job, so they thought: Here is a great opportunity for me to go into business for myself. A lot of these businesses are things that can sustain themselves if you have a good computer system and you can run it out of your home. Your costs are minimal. It is a great opportunity for an entrepreneur to take some idea he may have and start a business for himself, with a relatively inexpensive operation, and running it out of his home. That is the American dream. This is the small business sector. This is where Americans have hope not only of owning their own home, but also of going into business for themselves. A lot of them have this desire. I think when we saw the downturn and a separation of many employees from high-tech companies, they took the separation bonuses they were getting and took this opportunity to go into business for themselves. I think that is great. That is the strength of America. Now let's look at the payroll survey. The payroll survey in the last couple months has been showing a growth. That is the last parameter, historically, that you see happen when the economy is recovering. I think that is great. We saw job growth this month. Maybe it was not as great as some would like to see it. The previous month was a phenomenal figure; in fact, it led to some pretty optimistic projections on job growth this month that did not occur. But I think over time we are going to continue to see this growth in jobs. I think that is very important to the recovery efforts, and our tax cuts have contributed to that. We recognize this in the budget which the Republican Budget Committee has proposed and brought to the floor. I think it is one that recognizes our economy is starting to recover. This economic growth is going to help us eliminate some of our deficit problems. I am optimistic about that. I think we made some tough decisions in this budget when we made some spending decisions. Last year, I told the chairman of the Budget Committee that we simply had to have a plan on how we were going to eliminate the deficit. Obviously, we had to limit the spending parameters. So the Budget Committee went ahead, last year, with a plan as to how to pay down the deficit. What I was watching for this year was to make sure we stayed on plan to eliminate that deficit within 10 years. And we are well within the plan. I was pleased, at the first of this year, when the President endorsed the idea that we needed to have a plan to pay down the deficit. The plan he put forward was a 5-year plan. It said, as a percentage of gross domestic product--which is probably, from an economist point of view, a very realistic way of looking at the impact of our deficit on the economy--that in 5 years we want to eliminate it by one-half. I looked at those figures and, lo and behold, the nominal rate was also reduced in half. Now, this is the actual dollar figure. The Budget Committee did better than that. They eliminated the plan. They did better than that. They reached about where the President was in about 3 years or so. And both the figures--as a percent of gross domestic product and nominally speaking, where we look at actual dollars--has got us well on the way to eliminating the deficit. I am proud to support this budget because we are taking a realistic approach. Spending is a problem. We are going to have to take a serious look at spending. I remember when we passed the budget in 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, we were trying to adjourn the Congress. In the last few days of that session, we passed over $500 billion in new spending. We had to compromise with then-President Clinton on a lot of his spending priorities. He was moving out of office. We were trying to get out of session so we could move on with the election. That $500 billion in new spending over a 10-year period is now coming home to roost. We are beginning to see phenomenal growth in spending in programs. It strikes me how many people believe we need to do more spending. If we look out at producers in the country, the taxpayers, they are having to take cuts. Many of them are losing their jobs. Yet the agencies can't afford to take a cut. Even the President's budget, as austere as it is, takes care of defense needs. We are in conflict. It takes care of homeland security to protect the country, and we should put our efforts into that. It is a very small increase in the rest of the budget, about .5 percent. The fact is, there is still an increase in spending. While the rest of the country is suffering reductions in their household spending, the Government still claims it needs increases year after year, despite what happens to the economy. There are going to have to be some serious decisions made about spending programs. Some of those decisions are going to be made this year. That is a step in the right direction. We need to look at what it is we can put in place as a policy for the Senate and the Congress to hold down spending. In 2002, a number of provisions we had adopted that would help us restrain spending in the Congress, help us restrain spending on the Senate side, expired. When they expired, we all of a sudden began to see spending increases. We needed to have budget parameters. Thankfully we began to put them in place in the last budget, and we are going to put them in place now with this budget. I know the chairman committed during our Budget Committee deliberations he would work with the ranking member to see if they cannot put together legislation and send a bill to the President he could sign where we could put in place some of the President's recommendations on how we can restrain spending and some of the recommendations of Members in the Senate. They are giving a lot of serious thought to it. I know Senator Conrad, as well as Senator Nickles, is thinking about it. I commend them both for looking at some of these parameters. We have in this particular budget some provisions to help restrain spending in the future. Hopefully we can keep those in the budget, and hopefully they will be applied in a way that will help hold down spending. I want to talk a little bit now about who is paying the taxes. About 1 percent of the population, the top 1 percent, pays 34 percent of the individual income taxes. These are 2001 figures. Then if we look at the top 50 percent, they pay about 96 percent. That means the bottom 50 percent of individual income tax filers is paying the balance, is paying only 4 percent of the individual income tax. We keep hearing talk about how the producers of the country, the top 50 percent of the country, are getting off scot-free. They are the ones who are really making a difference. They are the ones who are making our economy move. I made some comments in this regard yesterday. I also looked at the amount of money. If you take all the income tax filers together, the whole group of them, and you take those paying $100,000 or more in taxes, they pay 75 percent of our total income taxes. So they are paying their fair share. Today a study was brought to my attention that had been done by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Usually I don't pay too much attention because they don't actually end up focusing on tax cuts and the tax issue. But they have come up with some very interesting data, more current than what I was quoting as far as the tax foundation was concerned. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers is paying minus 3 percent of income taxes. In other words, our earned tax credits are kicking in, and they are showing the bottom 50 percent of the taxpayers is paying a minus 3 percent of income. The earned income tax credit is a cash payment we give to those with lower income. Fourteen percent of the payroll taxes come from that 50 percent. Yesterday somebody said: You didn't talk about the payroll taxes. This bottom 50 percent makes up about 14 percent of the payroll taxes. That is only 5 percent of all income and payroll taxes. So when we combine those together, we come up with 5 percent. That includes your filers, plus the withholding from their taxes. What happens to the top 10 percent of the taxpayers? The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of our income. That is based on the Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center. Thirty-two percent of those are payroll taxes. That is a total of 53 percent of all income and payroll taxes together. So 10 percent of all taxpayers, including income tax plus payroll taxes, are paying 53 percent. The bottom 50 percent is paying 5 percent when you combine them. The producers of this country, the wealthy, if you want to put them in that category, are the ones who are really making a difference. It is time we put aside class warfare and talk about meaningful change in the economy that will make a difference. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. I ask to have that charged against the time allocated to the budget resolution.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I emphasize that we are moving forward. We just finished a recession. The attack on America and the war on terror have created some unacceptable budget deficits and we are trying to deal with these in the budget. Since 2001, spending increases and the economy, not tax cuts, have been the biggest contributors to the deficits. The President's economic policies are working. The gross domestic product growth is up, unemployment is down, and the combined value of the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ have increased 40 percent. We are moving forward. We can reduce deficits by slowing spending and preventing economically damaging tax increases. I will go over just a few things that our budget will do. In 3 years, by 2007, it is going to cut the deficit in half and continue bringing deficits down. It is going to slow the growth of discretionary spending. We are eliminating wasteful mandatory spending. We are attempting to prevent tax increases on families. We are trying to maintain some spending discipline. We are trying to show that as Republicans, we can lead, and that Senator Nickles from Oklahoma is willing to take and make the tough decisions necessary to eliminate our deficits under this budget. Our Nation's priorities, as reflected in the budget, are that we fully fund the President's request on homeland security; education, there is a $1 billion increase for both IDEA and title I grants; veterans health care, there is a $1.4 billion increase for veterans health care; international affairs, $3.6 billion increase under the President's proposal, including funding for the global AIDS initiative. The budget also rejects several of the President's proposed cuts for congressional priorities like the Corps of Engineers and the EPA Clean Water Act. I think this is a very responsible budget. I think it is a very thoughtful budget, and obviously it is a budget that reflects what the American people are trying to tell the Congress. The noise I hear back home and the noise I hear from the American people is, look, these deficits are a problem, but the tax cuts are not what is contributing to the deficit. The tax cuts are actually stimulating our economy. Even the people who are in our States are beginning to realize that the economy is recovering. They would like to see it recover more, and I do not blame them. I do, too. The fact is the tax cuts are making a difference. I would like to go back to the discussion I was holding earlier this afternoon on who pays the taxes. I will speak about this chart I have before me. This chart reflects a study made by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Under this area of ``with tax cuts,'' the issue is, what is going to happen as far as the income tax rates are concerned? Well, the bottom 50 percent of the tax cuts is a minus 3 percent. What does that mean? That means that there is actually a cash payout to taxpayers. How does that happen? We have an income tax credit where we actually make a cash payment to individuals who are low income who are working. The top 10 percent of the taxpayers are 71 percent. The payroll taxes--and yesterday when we were talking about what was happening with tax cuts, I was talking about the income taxes and then they brought up, well, what about the payroll taxes? That is how much one's check comes up short. There is the gross amount and then they take out all the payroll taxes and the bottom line is what a person takes home. This means the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay about 14 percent of the payroll taxes and the top 10 percent of the taxpayers 32 percent. That figure was a little bit of a surprise to me. I thought perhaps that would be closer, but again it is pretty obvious that the higher income taxpayers are paying a considerable amount more than those in the bottom 50 percent. That is the top 10 percent. Then if we combine both of those, if we combine the income taxes that are paid and then combine the payroll taxes, it averages out that the bottom 50 percent of the taxpayers pay about 5 percent of the taxes. The top 10 percent pay 53 percent of the taxes. What happens without the tax cuts? An interesting phenomenon has happened. Every time we have cut taxes in the Senate, the percentage the high-income taxpayers pay keeps going on. When we cut taxes, they pay a greater percentage of the revenues derived from income tax. This is reflected in the column ``without the tax cut.'' Here is what we see happening. We see that the bottom 50 percent pay about a minus 1 percent. In other words, they are not getting as much money sent back as we saw with the tax cuts. We see less taxes being paid by the top 10 percent. So here we are with the tax cuts, and their share of the taxes goes from 67 percent up to 71 percent. We even see that phenomenon happening when we combine both income and payroll taxes. This is significant. When we make our adjustments in our tax cuts, those who are in the higher income pay a higher percentage of taxes as we move forward with our tax cuts. I think that is important. The upper income pays a greater share of the tax burden with tax cuts than without. This is broken out a little differently, but if we look at the top 1 percent, the red here reflects with the tax cuts and, over here, what happens without tax cuts. We see the top 1 percent ends up paying a greater percentage of the tax cuts. We go here to the 10 percent, we see there is still an increase. Without a tax cut it is a lower percentage than with the tax cut. We are getting a shift automatically to the higher income taxpayer. On the 50 percent it is close to even, although there is a little, very narrow difference there. Then the bottom half actually is paying fewer taxes as a percentage with the tax cuts as opposed to without. What happens with this budget when we are talking about the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, and changing the tax bracket? We need to do this if we want to preserve income for the family. Here is how this breaks out as we have it in the bill. If we let all these taxes expire, here is what happens. If we don't take any action on taxes this year, here is what happens. Assume the family tax bill in 2004 for a middle- class family of 4 is $6,000. Then here is what would happen with that family of four. They are going to pay $600 more, because we begin to see a drop in the per-child tax credit. It expires. Then we begin to see the marriage penalty relief expire. We see a drop there--$911. We see the 10-percent bracket expansion expires. That adds $100. So the total tax increase that will hit that family of 4 is $1,611. That means the family tax bill from 2004 to 2005 is going to increase $7,611. That means there is going to be $1,611 less expendable income from that family. My view is if we can keep that money in the family they are going to create jobs because they are out buying products, they are buying and stimulating the economy, as opposed to the Federal Government, where that does not happen. That phenomenon is not there. That is a 26- percent tax increase that happens if we do not go ahead and implement these tax relief provisions that are in the budget bill. These are very important. They are important to families in America and they are important if we are going to continue to see our economy grow, because it gives the family greater discretionary income so they can meet their needs. If we can keep the money in the taxpayers' pockets in their own local communities, then that money is available to help those communities. Taxpayers look at the whole tax burden. If it is too high at the Federal level, they don't particularly feel they want to give up their hard-earned taxes for things that are happening in their community. But if they can get tax relief at the Federal level, then they realize some relief from the Federal tax burden and they are more willing to support what needs to be done in their community. Maybe they need to increase the sales tax for open spaces or have a sewer plant replaced or maybe a water treatment plant for the drinking water needs to be improved upon, or maybe the roads and highways need to be taken care of. These are local projects. It means there is more money available at the local level so the local communities can do that. To me, this makes a lot of sense. We need to move the power from Washington back to our cities and States. That is what this is all about. It is not about whether we are going to tax the wealthy. The wealthy are carrying their fair share. It is about getting the money back down to the States, back down to the individuals, where it will make a difference in people's lives. This is a well-thought-out budget. I think it moves this country forward. It is a budget that I think will make a difference in American lives. It is something I hope we can pass out of the Senate, get to the conference committee, and we can get it back with minimal change. Obviously there will be a few things that will happen. We will have a number of amendments here on the floor, but this is basically a pretty good plan. We need to get a budget this year. That is the first step. Then once you get the budget passed you can get your appropriations bills. Without a budget, it is catastrophic. We saw that happen 3 years ago. We didn't get a budget passed from this Senate. We saw spending get out of control. We saw all sorts of budget discipline lost in the budget process and this all contributed to the deficits we are facing today. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to work with the chairman of the Budget Committee because he has indicated a willingness to work with the Members of the Senate to take care of their concerns. Let's get a budget passed and move forward, a budget that will hold the Senate accountable so we will be well on our way to eliminating the deficits we now face. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. President, there is no doubt the veterans have sacrificed a lot for our freedom in this country. I am looking at this amendment where we have $5.4 billion we take out of tax cuts. I am assuming a lot of that would come out of the child tax credit, for example, and then it is put over in reserve, perhaps, to be used later by the appropriators. There are several points I will make. No. 1, this administration and the budgeteers in this Senate have been committed to the issue of veterans. This chart shows a picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the year 2000; before that it is very much a flat line. Then after the year 2000, after President Bush has been elected to office, we see a very distinct steady climb in the amount of benefits provided for veterans. In real figures, in 1997 we were looking at 2.8 percent increase on veterans medical care; in 1998, 4.2 percent; in 1999, .7 percent; in 2001, we had 7.8 percent--and it persists--in 2002, a 7.6 percent increase; in 2003, a 12.3 percent increase; in 2004, an 11.1 percent increase. We do not have the medical cost-of-living increases for 2004, but prior to that most of those were in the 4 percent range, so we were appropriating dollars over and above what the medical cost-of-living figures were showing. We were sensitive to that. We all realize that there are a lot of needs out there for veterans. I see a lot of need for veterans in my State. Here is what concerns me about the amendment. We have young families right now making a huge sacrifice for us in fighting for freedom in Iraq, Iran. I have a lot of families in Colorado, families all over the State that have young children. They are taking advantage of the child tax credit. Do we take this away, in the way of a tax increase, do we take away that benefit and make it available to the veterans when we have been giving them a double-digit increase for the last several years? There are a lot of different choices they have to make between the balance of our needs. I guess one of the concerns I have is how these tax increases being proposed by the other side are going to impact our active military, and also making the assumption that our veterans do not pay taxes. They do pay taxes. I hear as much concern from veterans about the effect of taxes on their daily lives as I do from any other population. Of course, we don't hear too much from those who are right now serving over in Iraq who have dependents because they are tied up with that. But to think in this debate that somehow or other these tax increases are not going to have an adverse impact on those already serving in the military and our current veterans of foreign wars--we have to keep this issue in balance. My point is, in this whole debate, in trying to imply that somehow we have not been sensitive to the needs of the veterans of this country, all one has to do is look at the double-digit increases that have happened in the last several years for the veterans, exceeding the cost of living for medical care, what they call the medical care inflation rate. But, again, we cannot assume that veterans do not pay taxes. They do. We need to balance this out. I think what the Budget Committee has reported out is responsible. It is a little bit different than what the President proposed. For example, the President proposed a $250 enrollment fee. We took that out. We were sensitive to what impact today's environment is having on veterans. We took that out. I think this has a good balance. I would hate to upset that balance. I would hate to take away a tax cut that is going to have a beneficial effect for our men overseas. I think it will have a beneficial effect on our veterans as they are trying to save their money to meet their own needs with their own families at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to set the record straight. We have heard a lot of discussion from the other side about the burden or about how these tax cuts are somehow favoring the rich and somehow implying that the rich are getting some sort of an advantage. I share with my colleagues some facts. This factsheet was put out by the Tax Foundation. It talks about the Federal individual income tax. It takes us up to 2001. The top 1 percent of the earners in this country, the top 1 percent who pay the highest taxes, pay 40 percent of the individual income tax in this country. The top 5 percent pay 53.3 percent. The top 10 percent pay 64.9 percent. The top 25 percent pay 82.9 percent. The top 50 percent of the individual income taxpayers in this country pay 96.1 percent. That means the bottom 50 percent only pay 4 percent of the total individual income tax that comes in. That is the individual taxes that are filed. I was looking to see what happens when we look at all income classes and all returns. These are taxable returns, itemized tax liability, at the 2003 rate and the 2003 law and 2003 income levels. If we look at those returns that show $100,000 to $200,000 in taxes, they pay 25 percent, a little over 25 percent. If we look at those who pay over $200,000 in taxes, they pay 49 percent. So if we total all the income classes and all returns--these figures are put out by the Joint Committee on Taxation--and we look at all these returns, and this is a current document--the previous document I referred to was up to 2001-- put out by the Tax Foundation--if you take those who are $100,000 or more, they pay over 75 percent of the taxes in this country. Now, it seems to me those individuals with those tax returns reflect hard work and productivity. They are doing their fair share in supporting the economy of this country. I think this needed to be made part of the record. That is why I wanted to take a little time to talk about the tax burden, because the story we keep hearing from colleagues on the other side is that somehow the rich are getting off easy. The lowest 50 percent of our individual taxpayers pay 4 percent and the top 50 percent are paying 96 percent of the taxes. That tells you who is paying the taxes. Then, if we look at all the returns filed in 2003, and then look at who is paying those, all those who paid $100,000 or more are paying over 75 percent of the taxes. That is phenomenal. The producers and earners are paying their fair share. I might add that a large percentage of these individuals, as well as others, are coming from small business. That is where our economic growth occurs, where our new ideas come from. If we can continue to promote and encourage the growth of small business, then that means our economy is going to do well. That is why I think the tax cut that we put in place was the right solution, and it has worked. I don't think anybody can deny that the tax cuts we put in place have worked. They have worked. If we increase taxes, which is being encouraged on the other side, supported by the other side, it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time--particularly when our economy is beginning to show growth. I think it is important, again, that we ought to actually extend these taxes permanently. If we would do that, I think that sends a message to the producers of this country that we are open for business and they will get out and they will produce. When the economy grows, I think it will help work us out of where we are now in deficits. I think it will increase revenues to the Federal Government substantially, and it will be easier for us to work our way out of the deficits we now face. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding. I wish to say how grateful and what an honor it has been to serve with the current budget chairman. He has done a great job. He has been a great leader in the Senate. This is the last budget with which he is going to be involved in the Senate. He is thorough, he is straightforward, meticulous and has put together some good budgets since working with him as chairman on the Budget Committee. We are going to miss him in the Senate. He has done a yeoman's job in putting together this budget. Like he said, putting together a budget is not simple. It is always easy to criticize a budget, and that is what I pointed out during the Budget Committee hearings. All we are hearing is criticism about this item and that item, but nobody is putting together a total budget, laying it before us and explaining what they are going to do to eliminate deficit spending. I think back to last year, for example, on the floor of the Senate when we were debating the budget. It was the same situation. The chairman and Budget Committee members had worked hard to put together a budget and bring it to the floor of the Senate. Colleagues were consistently complaining and criticizing the deficits, but the fact is, we had amendment after amendment presented calling for more spending. It totaled up to about $1.6 trillion in amendment after amendment calling for more spending. Where were they getting a lot of the money? They were getting the money by wanting to increase this tax and increase that tax to pay for it. The rebuttal is: Well, we pay for it by increasing taxes. I do not think the answer to this economy and the long-term solution to this budget is to increase taxes. I think the long-term solution is we need to hold down spending. One of the problems we have run into in recent years, since about 2002, since many of the provisions which held spending in check are no longer before us, is we have seen spending increase, and we are continuing to see spending as a problem as we move forward and debate this budget. We cannot deny the role the recession has had in revenues coming into the Federal Government. Our deficits are a function in any 1 year of the amount of money that is coming in and the amount of money that is being spent. In any 1 year, when spending is greater than the revenue coming in, we end up with a deficit. Sometimes in our discussions, we interchange the terms ``debt'' and ``deficit.'' There is a difference. Debt is the accumulation of the deficit spending over the years, so it reflects that. Deficit is when we spend more than what we bring in in revenue. I have some information. When we look at the economic downturn--and the President in his budget had come up with a figure in the economic downturn--he held 49 percent of the current deficit. I looked at a chart--this is from the President, the Executive--and it comes up with similar figures. This is put out by the Joint Economic Committee. Senator Bennett is chairman. It is equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats out of the Senate. They point out what has happened to the surplus. Using our CBO figures and using the figures we use in the legislative branch, we come up with the weak economy could be attributed to greater than 40 percent, and that increased spending was attributed to 36 percent of the loss of the surplus. Then we have our tax cut in 2001, 18 percent. The economic stimulus was 1 percent, and then the tax cut we put in place again was 5 percent. So the total is about 24 percent of the loss of surplus that would be attributed to tax cuts; 36 due to an increase in spending of the Federal Government, and the weak economy another 40 percent. This is by the Joint Economic Committee. This is not me. This is not the President putting that out. This is a bipartisan committee we have which looks at these kinds of figures. Then we look at what happens year after year with spending as compared to the tax cuts we have put in place. Let's take a look at that. We start in fiscal year 2005. Here is a good example. The tax cuts reduced revenues by $212 billion. Spending increases enacted since 2002 will total $268 billion. We have $212 billion tax expense to the surplus, but spending is $268 billion. Let's see what happens in 2006 as we move out in time in this budget. The gap we see between spending and tax cuts and its impact on the surplus grows even more. The 2006 tax cut reduces revenues by $163 billion and spending increases enacted since 2001 will total $314 billion. That gap is growing with each year as we move out. Over the next 5 years, 2005 to 2009, revenue decrease due to tax cuts is going to run a total of $979 billion. What happens during the same time period with our spending as it moves out in time, $1.722 trillion. That is what happens to the growth in spending. The point I am making is when there is a tax cut and that money is returned to the American people, it does not escalate and grow as an expense against the surplus, but the spending grows considerably. I happen to believe our budget process is prejudicial against holding down taxes. The way the budget rules work, it is always easier to increase spending than it is to cut taxes. I think one of the most important ways to continue to stimulate this economy is to make sure we hold down our tax burden. I know the other side is advocating that we go ahead and increase taxes, but I think that is wrong. It is the wrong thing to do now, when the economy is starting to come back. We are starting to see very encouraging figures about the economy in response to the stimulus plan we passed in the two previous tax cuts we put in place. They were put there to stimulate the economy. When this President came into office, he inherited an economy that was starting to go down. Then we went through an unprecedented period of an economic downturn, which we had never seen during modern times, where revenues decreased at least for 3 consecutive years as we looked out. This had a profound impact on the amount of revenues coming into the Federal Government. If we had not made those tax cuts, my personal judgment is this economy would still be struggling. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy, and now I think once we start getting the revenues in from this year, we are going to see a growth and the budget reflects that. Our economy is going to be on the way. With the recovering economy, we are going to see a regrowth in revenues coming to the Federal Government. The best way to grow revenues to the Federal Government is to stimulate the economy, not to increase taxes. Increasing taxes has a depressing effect on people's willingness to produce because they do not see themselves keeping that money in their pocket. They see it coming back to Washington and being spent. If the citizens of this country can see the money they are earning staying in their own pocket and paying for their needs, meeting their family's needs, meeting the needs of their local economy, they see it as a much more beneficial process and something that would motivate them to be more productive. When they are more productive, they are going to be paying more Federal taxes. Then that return comes back to the Federal Government and is reflected in increased revenues and helps us eliminate deficit spending. The last parameter to change in our economy is unemployment. Unemployment is going down and we are continuing to see job growth. This last report was not as much as was hoped, but we are continuing to see a growth in jobs. According to the payroll survey, jobs have increased 6 months in a row. The household survey remains higher than prior to the recession and more Americans have jobs than at any other time in our history. This is a result of those tax cuts. Where do we go from here? We have the economy beginning to grow, and we have a budget before us that begins to eliminate the deficit. I will talk a little bit about that because the President had planned to eliminate the deficit within 5 years of his budget. He said we can cut the deficit in half either as a percent of gross domestic product or in nominal terms--in other words, actual dollars. We have done better than that in the Budget Committee, thanks to the leadership of the chairman. We are getting out of deficit spending within 3 years, depending on how one wants to talk about it, or even as soon as 2 years. This is in real dollars, and we are doing better than the President. I think this is a phenomenal step in the right direction. We started taking this deficit seriously in the last budget. In fact, it was important to me, and I know a lot of other members on the Budget Committee, that we start taking an early step in eliminating the deficit, so we started putting this plan in place in the last budget. It is important to me that when I look at today's budget I want to make sure we are staying with that plan, or doing better. I am happy with what the President has proposed. I am especially happy with what has come out of the Budget Committee. We need to stay with that commitment and move forward. In order to continue to hold down spending, we are going to have to put in place some budget rules in order to have a disciplined approach to deliberating the budget so spending does not get out of hand. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee is looking at such a plan and giving it some serious thought. We have part of that plan currently in the budget proposal before us, and I think that is something we need to focus on. In fact, from a long-term strategy standpoint the most important thing might be to do something legislatively that would put in place, with the President's signature, some real rock-solid rules on how we can control spending. There need to be some provisions in case of an emergency, but we cannot be so flexible that we allow the emergency spending to be abused. I have observed in the short time I have been in the Senate that emergency spending bills get abused. Again, with some good, thoughtful provisions, and if we can get this budget passed, I think we will have in place some rules that will help us try to stay on board in order to eliminate the deficit. I am convinced with the economy starting to grow that we can get back to where we have surpluses. I would like to be back in a position where I was a number of years ago where I could propose amendments on the Senate floor on appropriations bills to pay down the surplus, to pay down the public debt. I am glad we did that, because if we had put some of that money aside toward paying down the public debt, then it gave us some money in reserve. We got to the point where we had an unprecedented time in our history, which we just experienced when this President came into office. We had an economic downturn that was getting well on its way, we had 9/11, and then we had some major conflicts we had to pay out of this budget. I would hate to think what our deficits would be like today if we had not made an effort to pay down part of the public debt when we had an opportunity to do that. At first, it was not very easy to get those amendments adopted on the floor, but after staying with them we were able to get those so we could make some significant steps toward paying down the public debt. I am hoping in the not too distant future we will be in a position again where we can pay down the public debt and eliminate deficit spending so we are back out of the red on an annual basis and then begin to work to pay down that public debt because that gives us sort of the reserve. I am glad we had that there. That is responsible management of the taxpayers' dollars, responsible management of our budget resources we have that come from hard-earned dollars that our taxpayers, American citizens, are earning for the Federal Government and sending back to Washington. Then, once we are in a position to get this budget passed, I think we also need to look at ways in which we can take care of emergency spending provisions. There are some dollars that are put in this budget to try to take care of some predictable emergency spending that we think we are going to have. We will have an emergency surplus bill. It will be either the end of this year or in the next fiscal year. It is right and proper and good accounting to begin to take that into consideration. I hope at some point in time we can begin to develop a pot of money over here for emergency expenses only. Then, once we have developed that, we will not have to come in for emergency supplementals where spending gets out of control and people get around our budget rules. We need to work and modify those, in my view, in order to have long-term responsible budgeting, at least out of the Senate and in the Congress. I think the solution is no tax increases. I think we could help our economy even more if we would take some of these--in fact I would take all these recent cuts we passed, which were the economic stimulus package and the 2001 tax cut as well as the 2003 tax cut--and make those all permanent. I think that would stimulate our economy to continue growing and we would go through another unprecedented period of economic growth, bringing revenues into the Federal Government, and that would be part of our solution as far as getting out of deficits. I think the fact that businesses and families, individual taxpayers, could plan ahead with the understanding that those tax cuts were going to stay in there for some time would build confidence in the economy. Then they would be willing to go out and make their investments and, as a result of that, create more revenue. When the tide rises, everything rises and everybody benefits. I hope at some point in time we can make all these permanent, especially the inheritance tax. The death tax is not part of those we have in here, although I think we extend that out for a year or two in this budget. But we need to permanently eliminate the death tax because it is silly to think people are going to plan for their death. They are not going to do that. The elimination expires toward the end of this decade and then it goes way back to previous levels, which are extremely high. That is not fair. If nothing else, just out of fairness we need to permanently eliminate the death tax. I see my time is running out. I thank the chairman, again. I see Senator Domenici on the floor. He was the chairman of the Budget Committee before Senator Nickles took over that responsibility. I think both of them have been very responsible and have worked very hard on the budget. I think we have a good piece of legislation. It is a resolution, an agreement between the House and Senate. It doesn't require the President's signature, but it is a commitment of both the House and Senate to eliminate deficit spending and hold down our tax burden and spending. I think we are heading in the right direction. If we can accomplish what is in this budget, I feel good about the future of this country and the future of our economy. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Monday, March 8, 2004, at 2 p.m., to consider the nomination of Mark B. McClellen to be Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Brian Rosoboro to be Under Secretary of the Department; Donald Korb, to be Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and Assistant General Counsel in the Department of the Treasury; and Mark J. Warshawsky, to be Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to salute the U.S. Air Force Academy Falcons basketball team. It gives me a great deal of pleasure as a member of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors to congratulate the high flying Air Force Academy men's basketball team on winning the 2003-2004 regular season Mountain West Conference Basketball Championship. On March 1, the Falcons clinched the championship with a 61-49 victory over San Diego State University. This is the first conference championship the Air Force Academy has achieved in basketball. Their improbable championship is even more impressive when you realize that this is the first winning basketball season at the Air Force Academy since the 1977-1978 season. Coach Joe Scott, my candidate for coach of the year, has done an incredible job guiding his team to upset victories over the University of California, Brigham Young University and two victories against the University of Utah on the way to an overall 21-5 record. I wish them well in the coming weeks as they represent my home State and the Air Force in the upcoming NCAA tournament. If my colleagues are looking for a real-life Cinderella story in this year's basketball tournament, I have found one in Colorado Springs, CO: the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I wish to talk about the economy. We can sure tell this is an election year. The false rhetoric that is going on about the economy is amazing. The fact is, the economy is recovering and our tax cuts have made a significant difference in the fact our economy is recovering. I heard the previous speaker on the floor talk about the jobs we are losing, but this President and this Republican Congress inherited an economy that was going in the dumps when he went into office. It was headed downhill. The stock market had been down for 9 months and the recession was just beginning when he was taking his oath of office, so one cannot blame this President for what has happened in the economy. We need to look back at what happened during the Clinton administration. We had one of the highest tax increases in the history of this country. Everybody who follows the economy knows it takes a while for tax policy to take effect. What has happened under the Bush Presidency, with a Republican Congress, is we put some tax cuts in place to get the economy recovered. It has worked. Now it did not start working immediately, but after a year or two we began to see the results. We are seeing the results today. The Members of the Senate who come to this floor and say we ought to raise taxes, that will do nothing more than destroy the economic recovery process we see taking place right now. I have a report from the Joint Economic Committee. The chairman of that committee happens to be Senator Bennett. It is made up equally of Members of each party from the Senate. There are five Republicans and five Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee. They have published a rather promising report. It is time we take a look at what they say about the economy. There should not be any doubt that the economy is recovering and a lot of it has been done due to the tax cuts. We should not allow a tax increase to occur that would destroy this economic growth. They report the economy is strong and there is sustainable growth going on. The recovery continues at a strong pace. Payrolls increased by over 112,000 jobs in January as activity in the manufacturing and services industries accelerated. Last year closed with the economy growing at a 4 percent annual rate and productivity growing at a 2.7 percent annual rate, well above the long-run averages. Despite all of this, inflation remains benign. It is not growing, allowing the Federal Reserve to maintain short-term interest rates at historical lows. Recent tax relief continues to benefit consumers and businesses. Forecasters see continued robust growth, low inflation, and accelerated job gains throughout this year. That is pretty good news. The payroll employment increase of 112,000 jobs in January was the largest monthly gain since the year 2000. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent. I remember when I took economics in college in the 1960s. Five percent was considered full employment. We were spoiled a little bit and it was definitely an aberration, as a lot of economists described it, when we got down to 4 percent, but 5 percent is still considered a full employment figure. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in January, well below its recent peak of 6.3 percent last June. Five straight months of job gains have now added 366,000 jobs to U.S. payrolls. 5.6 percent is good news. The economy grew at a robust 4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2003. Forecasters see continued growth of around 4 percent throughout this year. Productivity--this is output per hour of labor--grew at a 2.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter, above historical averages. I continue to believe the workers in this country are the best educated, the best motivated, and nowhere in the world is their productivity exceeded. They are the ultimate. I think we should be proud of that and recognize it is all that individual effort that makes a difference and what keeps this economic engine growing. The Federal Reserve has kept short-term interest rates unchanged at 1 percent, which is good for individuals who want to buy homes, for example. The administration worked with me to pass legislation called the American Dream Down Payment Act to get people into homes. I see now they are reporting that home ownership is at an historic high. It has never been higher in the history of this country than what we are seeing today as far as homeownership. That legislation, working with the administration, is the type of effort that is making the difference. The household survey, used to calculate the unemployment rate, showed employment gains of almost 500,000 in January. The gap between the household and the payroll measures of employment continues to widen, confirming initial labor market improvements and continuing jobless claims for unemployment insurance benefits are trending downward. I like to rely on the household survey because I think the household survey tells us something the payroll survey does not. What it tells me is a lot of our Americans are saying, look, now is the time for me to start my own business. When they start their own business they start out small so that means they start out of their home, they contract to do their labor. Then as demand grows for their service they begin to expand out from there. The household survey reflects that. We have seen tremendous growth in the household survey. The payroll wage survey misses that particular parameter. That has been good news for some time, and the Joint Economic Committee has shown evidence this continues to grow. This is the small business sector of this country. It is the small business sector where one sees economic growth happen because this is where new ideas develop. This is where small companies have an opportunity to grow into larger companies like we have seen many of our high-tech companies do. Last night I had dinner with a number of executives from high-tech companies, and they are bullish on our economy. They think things are doing pretty well. They told us, well, maybe there have been a few jobs that have gone overseas, but nearly all of our jobs are growing in America. This is where our job growth is happening. Again, this is a political year and a lot of this false negative rhetoric is not telling the full story, and that is what I want to get across this morning. The economy is recovering and that is due to our tax cuts. Gross domestic product and productivity have grown at a very strong and sustainable rate. Real gross domestic product, often referred to as the GDP, grew at a solid 4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, following the third quarter's remarkable 8.2 percent rate. Amazing, the third quarter of last year had a 8.2 percent growth rate. In the second half of 2003, the economy grew at the fastest 6-month pace in almost 20 years. Over 2003, as a whole, gross domestic product grew at a robust average of 4.3 percent. By way of comparison, the economy grew at an average of 3.7 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. Even when we had unprecedented economic growth in the 1990s, it was only 3.7 percent. We saw a much higher growth rate last year. Productivity also advanced, growing at a 2.7 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, and in excess of 4 percent for the second consecutive year, well above historical averages. Forecasters believe the gross domestic growth will be sustained at around 4 percent throughout this year. That is all good news. Our tax cuts are working. Let's look at business activity. Business activity continues to strengthen. Increases in average weekly hours of work and moderation of job losses in manufacturing indicate rising activity. Confirming this trend, the Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index has risen since May to its highest value since 1983. The ISM services index has also been rising and, in January, was the highest in its history. Index value over 50 means the relevant sector is expanding. Current values of well above 60 indicate vigorous expansion in manufacturing and service. The economy is recovering and our cutting taxes is making the difference. Consumer confidence and spending grew. The University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index rose in January to its highest value since 2000. The Confidence Board's index rose to the highest in 18 months. After tax income also continues to grow, boosted by tax cuts. Most Americans, after filing their taxes, are going to get more money back from the Government than they have in previous years. Improved sentiment and incomes have boosted consumer spending, which grew at a 2.6-percent annual pace in the fourth quarter after hearty spending in the third quarter. After tax incomes will improve further as taxpayers receive higher refunds. What does it look like as far as the Fed? They are holding monetary policy steady. It is unchanged. This means they kept short-term interest rates at the five-decade low of 1 percent but changed their policy statement to set up flexibility to raise rates if they see signs of inflation. So they are prepared to act if we start to move into an inflationary cycle. Many measures of inflation are at their lowest since the 1960s, a key reason the Fed has accommodated strong growth without raising rates. I continue to point to the housing market where we had huge amounts of growth in home ownership because interest rates are low. All of a sudden, individuals who could not make a downpayment on a home found that, by gosh, with the interest rates down, it is easier for them to come up with the payment. It means their monthly payment will be less because interest rates are lower. Home ownership is good for the economy. It creates jobs. The housing market remains robust. Remarkably strong home sales have boosted the home ownership rate to a new high, and that new high is 68.5 percent. Many signs point to more strength in housing in the near term. Mortgage applications have increased again on a renewed dip in mortgage rates. Housing starts rose in December to the highest rate in about 20 years and permits for home construction were up for the fourth quarter. This is all good news. The economy is recovering. It has been due to those tax cuts that we implemented earlier in the President's term. Ministers from major industrial countries met last weekend to discuss currency issues, including the dollar's recent decline and China's dollar peg. The dollar fell 10 percent against Japan's yen and 17 percent against the euro last year, making U.S. exports less costly in world markets and imports more costly. Ministers again called for flexible, ``orderly'' exchange rates. This is all good news. I recall at the first of last year and in 2002 manufacturers were coming to me and complaining about their inability to compete in the international markets because the value of the dollar was so much higher than what it had been historically. Those of you who are listening understand, when the value of the dollar is low, it means the cost of your goods and services are much higher and it is harder for you to be competitive against the yen or euro, for example. Now that is changing. The value of the dollar has dropped down so this means our manufactured goods are going to be able to compete overseas against those products that are already provided. I feel good about what we can look forward to. I am disappointed that we have to resort to all this negative rhetoric because we are in a campaign. I have shared with my colleagues here, and the American people, some real facts about what is happening in the economy. I don't think anybody, when they look at these facts, can disagree that our economy is in a state of recovery. Obviously, you can take the facts and pull them over two decades and you can distort them and try to make the President look bad as far as the economy is concerned. But the fact is, President Bush has had a strong growth policy for the economy, and it is working. It included cutting taxes and holding the growth in interest rates down, working with the Fed. Economic indicators have shown positive growth and the economy is going to continue to do that. I cannot understand why the opposition party has decided they are going to make the economy their issue. It is a losing issue because the economy is recovering. The American people are beginning to realize that. My State, for example, is a diverse State. We don't like to put all our eggs in one basket, so we have manufacturing, we have tourism, in the State of Colorado we have agriculture, we have natural resources, high technology, telecommunications and research and development. We realize things need to be done to encourage that, something we need to encourage throughout the country, to make sure we stay competitive. And that is educations. The company executives I met with last night said, yes, education is important. We need to be sure that we have our workforce, our citizens, well educated. The President has pushed to improve education. No Child Left Behind is certainly a sincere effort to try to improve our educational system. I happen to think it is going to work. We are improving our educational system. The economic figures are looking good. We should all be positive about the outlook, as far as America is concerned. I am proud to be American. I am proud of my small business roots. I had an opportunity to start a business from scratch as a veterinarian and I worked hard to see that grow. It gave me an opportunity to contribute to my community as a small businessman, and to provide an opportunity for my children to get an education. They got their education. Now they are raising their families. I want to see my grandchildren have the same future that I have enjoyed, and my children have enjoyed. I think what the President is doing to hold down taxes creates lots of opportunity for young people to get their own business started. That is the strength of America, our small business sector. That is where innovation starts and that is where growth begins. Madam President, I am curious to know how much time we have left on this side.

Mr. ALLARD. I want to talk a little bit more about the housing issue. As our economy was going through an unprecedented decline, we saw housing stay up. That was the one part of our economy that actually sustained us. It was a pleasure for me to be able to work with the President on the American Dream Downpayment Act, to allow for young people in all areas of the country to begin to be able to make that downpayment on that first home. In studying what was happening in the last several years, even though we had dropped interest rates and it was easier to qualify for loans, there were a lot of people who should have but did not own their own homes. Historically the barrier was that downpayment. So the American Dream Downpayment Act provides a way for families who run up to this barrier, where they look at their rental rates they are paying that are exactly the same as what their mortgage payment would be, this provides them an opportunity to get past this downpayment barrier in order to own a home. It is working. It is going to work. As it moves forward--it is just getting started--it is going to do even more to create home ownership. I am proud of this President. I am proud of his economic policies. I am proud to be able to work with him in a partnership in cutting taxes and encouraging the economy to grow. As a small businessman, I know how that works. If anything affects a job, or growth, it is when taxes get too high and rules and regulations take over your business. As a small businessman, I have had to suffer through down economies. I have had to lay people off because our small business was not doing very well because of a down economy. It is not fun. But we always recovered and after we recovered we were more productive and we were more efficient and we generally provided a better service. I think that has happened in this country. I think a lot of companies have taken the downturn and streamlined their operations, improved their services. The bottom line is that we are going to have more jobs in this country. Our economy is going to continue to grow. The bottom line is the consumers in this country are going to be better served. This President has done the right thing for America. It is unfortunate that, in an election year such as this, the political rhetoric gets so negative because it really does not reflect what has been going on. To repeat, unemployment rates have dropped to 5.6 percent. The gross domestic product is growing at phenomenal rates. Job growth is happening. It is occurring today. Other countries have looked at what we have done in America to create jobs, and they are updating. Competition is going to be tough in the international market, and we need to be prepared to compete. Trade restrictions is not the way to do it. We historically have been able to compete throughout the international community without trade restrictions. In fact, the trade agreements we pass actually make it possible for the United States to cut down the trade tariffs that are applied against American products. One of the things that gets thrown out here is the trade deficit. The trade deficit has been the worst in this country during the Depression and during the recession we had at the end of the Carter years in the 1970s. When our economy goes down, trade deficits get better. When our economy goes up, trade deficits change because consumers are buying more goods. When you have them buying more goods, it creates more jobs. I don't see where the trade issue is one that really reflects what is happening in the economy. I shared these issues with you this morning because that is really what is happening in the economy. Employment is rising, unemployment rates continue to fall, gross domestic product and productivity continue to grow strong and at a sustainable rate, business activity continues to strengthen, consumer confidence and spending grows, the Fed is holding interests rates at a steady 1 percent, and the housing market looks really good. It has been good for a while and continues to look good. When you compare the dollar to the yen or to the euro, its value is going down, which is good for exports. It is good for business. It means we will be able to move our products overseas. I think it looks good. I am proud of this President. He has the right solution, and it is working. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his comments. I, too, look forward to working with him on these transportation issues. We worked together on a number of issues throughout our careers. I always look forward to the cooperation he is willing to share in a bipartisan way. While we are passing out some ``atta boys,'' I want to again congratulate the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for getting this bill to the floor. It was not easy. I know he worked all last year, and while most of us were on break, he was working hard trying to work out compromises so this legislation would be one of the first with which we would be dealing when we came back in for this particular session of the Congress. Historically, transportation issues have not been partisan. Usually, it is approached in a bipartisan way. It is very complicated. Every State is affected differently. The bill has a highway transportation portion and a mass transit portion. Usually, there are some provisions, such as we saw this year, that come out of the Commerce Committee. The Finance Committee gets involved because there are some issues on how we are going to come up with the money that is required. I also wish to compliment Chairman Shelby. Chairman Inhofe is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and then we have Chairman Shelby who is chairman of the Banking Committee. A major part of the mass transit provisions comes out of that committee. He has been working with the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes. I am chairman of a subcommittee in the Banking Committee that deals with housing and transportation, so I have oversight over mass transit. I work with the ranking member, Senator Reed of Rhode Island. They, too, spent a great deal of time working on this legislation, and I thank them for working in a bipartisan way to reach a consensus on this bill. One of the issues we struggled with is how we are going to pay for what everybody wants in highway transportation and mass transit. It is something with which Congress has been struggling. This bill came out of the Finance Committee, and they put in provisions. My concern is that we don't add to the deficit and we use those dollars that are available in the highway trust fund to finance transportation needs, particularly for highways. The bill is a step in the right direction. It makes important steps in a number of areas. I come from a State that has experienced rapid growth. I know a lot of Members of the Senate who come from rural areas, particularly in the West and the South, have experienced similar growth rates in their particular States. So we all are challenged with the transportation problems that come with that rapid growth. One problem is mass transit. Historically, most of the dollars in mass transit have gone to those States that have large metropolitan areas or directly to a large metropolitan area, such as New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But those of us who come from relatively small metropolitan areas but are showing a lot of growth have never had access to dollars that are required for us to begin to move forward with mass transit. In the State of Colorado, Denver is our metropolitan area. It was very difficult at one point to access the dollars to start mass transit systems. There were provisions put in place when we had Chairman Alfonse D'Amato from New York. I worked with him to try and put together a formula for mass transit where the smaller States could begin to participate in some of the mass transit dollars. That originally got put in place when Alfonse D'Amato, who was from New York, was chairman of the committee. Like I said at the time when we were working with Chairman D'Amato, we don't want to take all the money for small States, but I think when we have more than 90 percent of the dollars in mass transit going just to 11 cities, that is not a good balance either. So we needed to work out a formula. We worked out a formula where the smaller growing metropolitan areas in this country would have some additional access to mass transit money. We continue to work on that provision in this bill. We are beginning to recognize the growth and the needs in many other communities throughout the United States and working to give them flexibility to approach their transportation problems with different perspectives. We give them as many alternatives as they possibly can select in trying to meet their transportation needs. One area is using buses, what we call rapid transit buses. These are buses that have dedicated lanes on highways. In some areas, it is cheaper to put down roads and highways than it is to build rail. They use that and then use buses instead of mass transit. It has the advantage of additional flexibility because the bus doesn't have to stop at one particular station. I know my State of Colorado is looking at this as an alternative. We have money in the section that came out of Banking to provide additional flexibility to the States and local communities so they can look at these various alternatives as to what they can afford. There is no getting around it; when you start putting in a fixed rail system, they are very expensive. I am happy to report in my State of Colorado, we have a major construction project combining expanding highways with mass transit. That particular project has been under budget and is ahead of schedule. As a result of that, the State is developing a good reputation in that regard. We have tried to put incentives in this legislation that says to communities throughout the country if you begin to take on these projects, we have incentives where you can work on the project, and if you are responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and you are ahead of schedule and under budget, this is all good news, so we want to encourage that type of behavior. That is so much of what we have been trying to accomplish in the mass transit section of the bill. Highways, obviously, are important as far as rural transportation is concerned but also is bus service. In some isolated areas of this country, there are elderly people, and many rural communities are disproportionately impacted by again rural populations. So they need to have some other alternatives of being able to get to their doctor or being able to get down and around in their communities to take care of their vital needs. So we have provided some programs that begin to provide bus service for the rural communities. Overall, I think there has been a little bit of shift, if one looks at this transportation bill, from large States to the smaller States and giving the smaller States some flexibility as far as the dollars. That is good because that is kind of what is happening with the population. There is a lot of population change. People are moving from the larger communities and going out into the smaller communities, and sometimes it has to do with the quality of life. They are going out in the smaller communities because they have smaller classes in the schools. They like the rural living. They like easier access without having to deal with traffic problems. We need to keep this in mind. So there is a provision in there to help take care of some of these big issues. We figured out that about 40 percent of the counties in this country do not have any transit at all and they are looking at some ways of trying to meet the needs of their local citizens. Overall, this package has some good in it. We just need to work out how we are going to pay for all of it. The other thing I would mention is, the private sector plays a key role in all of this. We sort of leaned on the private sector to help provide the expertise, and we want to be sure they have an opportunity to get into public-private partnerships because it can benefit all parties. Many times if it can be opened to a free market approach, it holds down the cost of the project. If projects develop into monopolies where one company, one group of employees, or one community has such control, then we do not have the competition out there to hold down the cost of the project. I am one who ordinarily believes that if costs for a project are to be held down, competition is the way to do it. Rules and regulations are passed, as well as having price controls. Basically, it is going to be competition that best serves the customers, whatever that transit project would happen to be, and also would be a process where we do not have an overburdensome bureaucracy which in itself does a lot to add to the cost of the project because of so much oversight. So it is kind of a balance between where is the proper level of regulation so they can assure that things are done right but on the other hand hold down on the regulations so there are not unnecessary bureaucratic delays. This is sort of a broad-brushed approach to our transportation needs. We began to recognize that there are lots of ways people can travel, and I think we have done that in this particular bill. I want to talk a little bit more about my own State of Colorado and what is happening. If we look at the highway transportation funding formula, Colorado does well as far as the formula is concerned. This kind of chart sort of illustrates that. If we look at TEA-21, the 6- year average is $335 million available for Colorado in the previous 6 years, per year. TEA-21 is the highway transportation bill that was passed and its funding ended in 2003. Now we are on 2004. This is what we call SAFETEA. If we look at the funding there, we have $423 million in 2004 for Colorado. In 2008, it goes up to $505 million, but in the last year we have a real balloon that goes up to $603. Some people say: I do not know if it is going to be there. Well, it is out there quite a ways, 6 years. In the last transportation bill we had, it was available for the State of Colorado. In the last transportation bill, they had flexibility that the States could use. There were some rather unique happenings in the Denver metropolitan area in trying to meet the transportation needs of the State as well as that metropolitan area. So for the State of Colorado it is about a 46-percent increase. All total, we are talking about 934.3 million new dollars over and above what was provided in TEA-21. If we want to spill those over into jobs, it is estimated that could create as much as 44,300 new job opportunities in the State of Colorado. So there is no doubt that if the infrastructure is worked on and it is done the right way, it can create a lot of opportunity in one's State. Certainly in the State of Colorado it is creating a lot of opportunity for us. Now, when we talk about transportation issues in my State, there are a lot of things with which the local communities have to deal. Obviously, there are those who have to commute to work who want to get to work as fast as possible. There are those who say, look, we have air pollution problems and as a result of that we want to restrict the amount of driving that goes on. So maybe mass transit is one of the ways to do that. The first large mass transit line that we put in the State of Colorado, in the Denver metro area, out toward what we would refer to as the southwest corridor, has helped hold down our air pollution. People are using that. Some people say we spent a lot of money on mass transit but it does not get used. Well, at least as far as the Denver metro area, it is being used. In fact, it is being used to the point where it has exceeded the amount of revenue that anybody anticipated. The usage is much higher. There is so much demand to get on the train that one of the things that has become an issue is parking, where are people going to park around the various stations in order to be able to take the train to work. So now this has been moved a step further. With the success of that train, they are taking the money and saying, OK, now we can expand it out to the major project they are doing now, which is between two major business centers. As far as Denver is concerned, it is going to help the economy a lot. So when done right, this can create a lot of opportunities in the various States. Again, I would stress the importance of the provisions that we have in here that encourage local control, encourage accountability, encourage efficiency so public policymakers in one's State will ask: What is it that we can do that will allow this project to move forward, without unnecessary delays? Our communities will benefit if we can get these projects done under budget and ahead of schedule. This is something I think every community should have the opportunity to strive for. As policymakers at the Federal level, it is something we need to begin to push. Again, the issue we are all facing is how to pay for this. I know the Finance Committee struggled. We are still struggling with it. What is the proper funding level for mass transit? I think the key markers that the President and so many Members have talked about is that we have to make sure the money is money that does not come out of the general fund, that it stays with the--now I am talking about highways--gas tax, because the gas tax is an allocated stream of revenue that has gone to a special purpose, and that special purpose is to build roads and highways and meet the needs of this Nation. We need to make sure we stay with that principle. Also, we want to make sure we do not begin to spend money on a bill, or through a bill, that is going to add to our Nation's deficit. Our deficits in this country are reaching historic highs, and we need to do something now to get deficit spending under control. I think the Budget Committee and the Members of this body are beginning to treat that issue in a very serious way. So we still have some challenges ahead of us, as we move forward with this particular legislation. I have a lot of confidence in Chairman Inhofe as well as Chairman Shelby. I think they have the ability to shepherd this very controversial, very complicated piece of legislation through the process. This is just one body. You have the House. They take a little different perspective on the highway transportation bill because they have districts they have to represent, and they don't look at it from a State view like those of us here in the Senate. I don't like, in my State, to be putting in special projects because what happens with special projects is they take away the flexibility of the State. You are telling your State where they ought to be spending their money on certain projects. I think that ought to be left to the States. For example, in the State of Colorado we have sort of a complicated process. We have a highway commission. They allocate. They make recommendations to the Governor and legislature. I don't feel comfortable as a policymaker here in Washington telling my Governor and the highway commission, people who know what is happening as far as their transportation needs, what should be done in the State of Colorado. So I try to avoid what is referred to as porkbarrel spending, where you earmark any particular projects in your particular State because I think that ought to be done in the State level. In the Senate that has never been much of a problem. When you get to the House side, where Members have their own districts they have to worry about, sometimes they worry about not having adequate voice even at the State level for the district they represent, particularly if it is a rural area, because it gets run over by the masses in the metropolitan areas. So on the House side you will see more earmarking, but on the Senate side you don't see so much. If I talk to my colleagues I try to encourage them to stay away from earmarking projects. I think the chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee shares those views. He has done a good job of making this a responsible piece of legislation. We still have a few challenges ahead of us, but it has been a pleasure working with the chairman. I see he has made it here to the floor. I don't see anybody else right now here who is interested in speaking, so without any more comment on anything. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wanted to understand where we were. The Senator is going to speak for 12 minutes and then I will be recognized for 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his statement. I have worked with him on the Environment and Public Works Committee on this important piece of legislation. The fact is there are a lot of committees involved in this legislation. I am thankful the majority leader brought it to the floor. We had a cloture vote to move forward with the bill. This bill has been before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, with Chairman Shelby, and also before the Environment and Public Works Committee, with Chairman Inhofe. Senators Bond, Jeffords, and Reid have all had input into this particular piece of legislation. I appreciate all of them for the work they put into this bill. It is not easy with input from the Budget Committee, from Don Nickles, chairman of the Budget Committee. We had input from the Finance Committee, Chairman Grassley, and also input from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has a small section involving transportation. This is a transportation bill, not just a highway bill. It is a transportation bill. It takes a good deal of cooperation, working together, to put together any piece of legislation like this. It is not simple. Most Members experienced the same thing I have experienced in the State of Colorado. The demand and the transportation needs have increased in each of our States. Over time, the demand for transportation mechanisms has grown throughout the country. The States have had to work harder to make their dollars stretch further every year. Transportation projects, whether they are building roads or laying rail, are simply not cheap. They are getting more expensive with each passing year, and the funds required for transportation projects are simply staggering. The Finance Committee has produced funding mechanisms they believe will be able to fund this bill. We must use the moneys intended for use in building roads and mass transit projects. That is the money in the highway trust fund. Some time ago, this Congress decided we need to dedicate a stream of revenue into the construction of highways. We need to make sure we maintain the integrity of that process because it is important. It sends a message that highways and this type of infrastructure are important in America. We have told the American people we will use the tax they pay on each gallon of gas they buy directly for funding transportation projects. We must do that. However, it is not appropriate to use moneys from the general fund. We have to stay true to the fiscally conservative obligations we have made for ourselves. We must not add to our country's deficit as we have an increased demand for transportation projects. That is why I am excited about the potential of an amendment on which I am working. This amendment will allow States to build additional capacity. It is called Fast Lanes. On roads that currently experience problems with congestion, you toll only those lanes. It brings forth a user-pay concept. In other words, if you use these lanes, you will pay for them. I worked hard to get this amendment adopted in committee. It just barely lost by one vote. I hope we can go ahead and get it adopted in the Senate. It gives another mechanism to provide infrastructure in this country, badly needed infrastructure, and has a user-pay concept. We say on interstate highways you can build additional lanes on to existing highways and toll the highways, toll them with a mechanism. We use our high technology so there are no toll booths. As the trucks and cars go down the toll lanes, commonly referred to as fast lanes, they will receive a bill later for the use they put on the highway. That helps pay for those fast lanes. It is intended to relieve much of the congestion problem we are seeing throughout the United States. The toll would be paid with electronic technology. There would be no need for a toll booth. The process can happen quickly, without requiring a decrease in speed. If you wish to use the ``fast lane,'' you pay the toll and do so. However, if you do not wish to pay the toll, you simply drive in the regular lanes, and that means just sit over in the regular lanes for an hour or two on some highly congested roads. It is your choice. But if you decide it is worth your time to go over and pay a toll to go on the toll lanes, then you can do that. So this is the advantage of having toll lanes. I emphasize that when we talk about ``fast lanes,'' we are not taking existing Federal highway lanes and putting a toll on them. These are new lanes we are putting on the side of some of our interstate highways. One study found that if every State participates, this ability for States to put in these kinds of lanes could raise close to $50 billion to go toward increasing road capacity. I realize that it is unlikely all States will use this funding mechanism, but if a tiny fraction of that is raised, that is still additional funding for road capacity that does not put an additional financial burden on those who are not willing and able to pay it. I see this ability as simply another tool in the ``toolbox'' that State departments of transportation can carry around. My staff continues to work with Senator Bond's staff to see that these provisions are included in the bill, and I appreciate the assistance they have given and their willingness to work with us on this particular provision. Because this is a transportation bill, and not just a highways bill, as so many incorrectly term it, I would also like to make a few remarks on the mass transit title of the bill. I went through the Environment and Public Works Committee. I served on that committee, so I had some input there. I serve on the Banking Committee. In fact, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, so I had some input there. I am also on the Budget Committee. So I want to make a few comments about the mass transit side. Before I turn to the specifics of the Banking Committee's bill, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Shelby. As chairman of the Banking Committee, he has worked diligently to make sure the committee's jurisdiction was protected, while moving forward as quickly as possible with a positive bill. I also thank him for his willingness to work closely with me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. Finally, I also thank Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, and Senator Reed, the ranking member of the subcommittee of which I chair, for their work on this particular piece of legislation. Along with their staff members, they have spent a considerable number of hours working to achieve consensus on many issues in the bill, and I appreciate their efforts. I was pleased to support the Banking Committee's bill during our markup earlier today. I believe it makes important progress in a number of areas. First, I am especially supportive of the new growing States formula. For far too long, the transit formulas have sent the lion's share of transit dollars to a small number of cities, primarily located in the Northeast. While we can all agree that transit is important to larger, east coast cities, there is no denying the need for transit services in a number of rapidly growing cities in the South and the West. While I believe we still need further adjustments to the formula to even better address the growing States, I believe this new formula will finally help growing States begin to address their transportation needs. I am also extremely pleased to see that the bill places a strong emphasis on rural transit. While many would consider ``rural transit'' to be an oxymoron, in fact, rural areas can often face even more acute transportation needs than large cities. Last year, one of my constituents, Larry Worth, testified before the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee regarding the need for transit in rural areas. He described how rural citizens may not have any other alternatives to access medical care, jobs, and vital services. With 40 percent of American counties having no public transportation, this investment is long overdue. There are a number of other very good provisions in the transit title, but I will not take the considerable time that would be necessary to enumerate them all. Suffice it to say that I believe the transit provisions will be of great benefit to public transportation in America. I am pleased to support the transit title, and I look forward to passage of the bill, preserving the provisions, and staying within our budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Joseph E. Leta, whose endless enthusiasm and energy promoted many of Colorado's sportsmen's organizations. Mr. Leta, who passed away on January 14, 2004, was a champion of wildlife and conservation programs. Joe was a lifetime member of numerous sporting organizations which included in Safari Club International, SCIF Sables, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Foundation, The Mule Deer Foundation, The Elk Foundation, The Alaskan and Canadian Outfitters Association, The Wild Turkey Federation, and The National Rifle Association. He had a particular passion for Safari Club International and served as President of the SCI Denver Chapter until September 2003. Concurrently and subsequent to his tenure as Chapter President, he was also very active at the National level for SCIF by serving on the Ethics Committee, The Conservation Committee, The Guides and Outfitters Committee, Director of SCIF Nominating Committee, Governmental Affairs Committee, Convention Committee, Humanitarian Committee, and as a Director at Large. In recognition of Joe's years of dedicated service, the Safari Club International will posthumously present him with the President's Award at SCI's 32nd Annual Hunters' Convention in Reno, NV in January 2004. As president of the SCI Denver Chapter, he inaugurated the establishment of the SCI Denver Sables, which is a club venue for sports women and men dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage through education. Joe recently proposed that the SCI Denver Chapter establish a scholarship fund for needy junior and senior college students who major in wildlife and conservation management. As a tribute to Joe, the Board of Directors approved the proposal and named the fund The SCIF Sables Joe Leta Hunting Heritage Scholarship Fund. During Joe's tenure as SCI Denver Chapter President, he presided over such club accomplishments as promoting the Sportsmen Against Hunger Program, which distributed over 3,000 pounds of fresh salmon to Colorado's various humanitarian food banks. He also presided over several revenue generating programs for the benefit of the Colorado Division of Wildlife by promoting big game hunting licenses. Numerous wildlife students at Colorado State University have received educational grants from the SCI Denver Chapter under Joe's direction. Joe was even instrumental in helping the Wyoming Game and Fish Department by directing SCI funds to construct an anti-poaching cabin in one of Wyoming's more remote regions where unlawful hunting was a problem. Joe was also a champion of the newly formed Colorado Sportsman's Caucus which is a sportsman's support group that interfaces with members of the Colorado Legislature on hunting, fishing and various other outdoor and wildlife issues. After graduating from Youngstown University and completing a tour of duty in the U.S. Air Force as an x-ray technician, Joe joined Picker International as a sales representative for their Medical Imaging Equipment Division. He retired from Picker after 30 years of service as a regional sales manager. Joe Leta was born July 16, 1931 in New Castle, PA as the only child of Joseph and Edith Leta. His wife of 49 years, Shirley and their three children, Joseph, Jr., Christopher, Lisa (Charles) Stanley, and one grandchild, Lacy, survive him. Joe and Shirley resided in Evergreen, CO for the past 26 years and they are members of Christ the King Catholic Church and the Hiwan Golf Club in Evergreen, Colorado.