Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of the farm bill legislation and, specifically, the substitute being offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts. This is important legislation. Farm policy is always important, not only to farmers but to America. This legislation is also important to the State of Colorado because farming is important to the State of Colorado. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee I participated in the drafting of the current farm legislation and, as a member of the Senate Agricultural Committee, I participated in the drafting of the farm bill we are about to consider. The drafting of farm policy is an interesting procedure and I am happy that I have twice had the opportunity to be a part of it. Many of the provisions in the Committee-passed version of the farm bill were bipartisan and have remained virtually the same in the Cochran-Roberts substitute. The provisions in the Nutrition, Rural Development, Credit, Energy, Research and Forestry titles have remained largely unchanged. There are, however, some provisions in Cochran- Roberts that I believe will be very helpful to our farmers. This bill allows for the implementation of a farm savings account program. Farmers can, in good times, contribute their own funds, which can be matched dollar-for-dollar up to certain amounts, by the USDA. I think that this is a wonderful way to help our farmers help themselves. It is not unlike the Thrift Savings Plan that we offer our own staffers here in the Senate. By putting back their own money for harder years of improvements like new farm equipment farmers can begin to set themselves back on their own feet and decrease their reliance on the U.S. Government. Cochran-Roberts also maintains the integrity of the crop insurance program reforms. Specifically this legislation provides farmers with essential risk management if there is a crop failure. And, according to an analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute the Cochran-Roberts bill will result in higher market prices for farmers than the committee-passed version. This is because the high loan rates in the committee-passed bill will provide incentives for over- production of crops. This, obviously, will result in lower market prices and increase the need for additional agricultural assistance. That is not what we want for America's farms. Cochran-Roberts will also provide for reasonable conservation funding. Under this legislation, funding for conservation programs would increase. Let me give you a few examples. Funding for EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, would ramp up to $1.65 billion by 2006. The conservation on Working Lands program is a new program that is included in EQIP and would receive funding in the amount of $100 million in 2002. This funding would increase to $300 million by 2006. EQIP is a program which I strongly support. The essence of this program came from legislation I introduced while in the House and serving on the House Agriculture Committee to provide money for cost share practices to reduce soil erosion and protect water quality. It is an important program that has tremendous environmental benefits in rural and urban areas. The acreage cap in the Wetlands Reserve Program would be increased so that up to 250,000 acres could be enrolled annually. Funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program would increase from $50 million in 2002 to $100 million in 2006. I want to spend a little time on the Farmland Protection Program. When this program was established in the 1996 farm bill, funding was limited to $35 million over the life of the bill. Now, due to the immense popularity and success of the program we are funding at its highest level ever, $435 million over the course of the bill. The funding for the program ramps up from $65 million in fiscal year 02 to $100 million in fiscal year 06. This voluntary program provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. In Colorado, the program has been successfully used to leverage additional State and private funding to help farmers and ranchers stay on the land. In addition, Farmland Protection Program would be clarified to provide that agricultural lands include ranch- lands and allows participation by non-profits and would require conservation plans for lands under easement. Forty million dollars would also be provided for conservation on private grazing lands and the Natural Resources Conservation Service would be funded to provide coordinated technical, educational and other related assistance programs to conserve and enhance private grazing land resources, and related benefits, to all citizens of the United States. In addition to providing increased funding to many conservation programs this legislation would establish a new program, the Grasslands Reserve program, that would aid in preserving native grasslands. Enrollment in this program would be 30-year, permanent easements and total enrollment would be capped at 2 million acres. Technical assistance and cost-sharing would be provided for the restoration of grasslands. I would also like to point out that this bill sticks to the trade obligations that we have made. I believe it is very important that we provide responsible assistance to our farmers. However, I believe it is equally important that we adhere to the responsibilities that we have as a result of WTO agreements. In addition, this Farm Bill substitute comes in under the budget allocation of $73.5 billion that was agreed to in the budget resolution. While many think that we can buy our way out of hard times, as a member of the Budget Committee, I believe that it is very important that we stick to the numbers outlined for in the budget resolution. Finally, equally important to getting a farm bill passed, is passing a farm bill that can be signed into law. Secretary Veneman and the administration are behind this bill. Secretary Veneman sent a letter indicating her strong support for this legislation and the White House has also expressed their support for the provisions contained in Cochran-Roberts. Now I would like to talk to something that is very important to me. I think that it is very important we focus on in the farm bill is research. As a veterinarian, this is an area that I believe in strongly. In order for our nation to continue to have one of the most abundant and safest food supplies in the world we must continue funding our research priorities. Our world is one that has continued to become more integrated. We can no longer assume that because a disease does not occur naturally in our country we need not worry about it. We must also be aware of the potential impact of diseases that are not naturally occurring. To this end, I worked to include several provisions in the research and forestry titles. The first allows for research and extension grants on infectious animal diseases. This will assist in developing programs for prevention and control methodologies for infectious animal diseases that impact trade, including vesicular stomatitis, bovine tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, brucellosis and E. coli 0157:H7 infection, which is the pathogenic form of E. coli infections. It also set aside laboratory tests for quicker detection of infected animals and the presence of diseases among herds; and prevention strategies, including vaccination programs. The second research provision that I included in the Research Title establishes research and extension grants for beef cattle genetics evaluation research. It provides that the USDA shall give priority to proposals to establish and coordinate priorities for the genetic evaluation of domestic beef cattle. It consolidates research efforts in order to reduce duplication of efforts and maximize the return to the beef industry and streamlines the process between the development and adoption of new genetic evaluation methodologies by the industries. The research will also identify new traits and technologies for inclusion in genetic programs in order to reduce the cost of beef production and provide consumers with a healthy and affordable protein source. The Forestry Title includes a provision which I sponsored to establish Forest Fire Research Centers. There is an increasing threat to fire in millions of acres of forestlands and rangelands throughout the United States. This threat is especially great in the interior States of the western United States, where the Forest Service estimates that 39,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Today's forestlands and rangelands are the consequences of land management practices that emphasized the control and prevention of fires, and such practices disrupted the occurrence of frequent low- intensity fires that had periodically removed flammable undergrowth. As a result of these management practices, forestlands and rangelands in the United States are no longer naturally functioning ecosystems, and drought cycles and the invasion of insects and disease have resulted in vast areas of dead or dying trees, overstocked stands and the invasion of undesirable species. Population movement into wildland/urban interface areas exacerbate the fire danger, and the increasing number of larger, more intense fires pose grave hazards to human health, safety, property and infrastructure in these areas. In addition smoke from wildfires, which contain fine particulate matter and other hazardous pollutants, pose substantial health risks to people living in the wildland/urban interface. The budgets and resources of local, State, and Federal entities supporting firefighting efforts have been stretched to their limits. In addition, diminishing Federal resources (including personnel) have limited the ability of Federal fire researchers to respond to management needs, and to utilize technological advancements for analyzing fire management costs. This legislation will require the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish at least two forest fire research centers at institutions of higher education that have expertise in natural resource development and are located in close proximity to other Federal natural resource, forest management and land management agencies. The two forest fire research centers shall be located in--A. California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Washington and B. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or Wyoming. The purpose of the Research Center is to conduct integrative, interdisciplinary research into the ecological, socio-economic, and environmental impacts of fire control and use managing ecosystems and landscapes; and develop mechanisms to rapidly transfer new fire control and management technologies to fire and land managers. Lastly, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, shall establish an advisory committee composed of fire and land managers and fire researchers to determine the areas of emphasis and establish priorities for research projects conducted at forest fire research centers. Again, I believe that research of all kinds is fundamental. Which is why I am pleased that the committee-passed legislation also contains several provisions that allow for the enhancement and expansion of research in the area of renewable energy. A number of grants were created to help increase the use of renewable resources. These grants will provide funds for biorefineries to convert biomass into fuel and assistance for rural electric co-ops to develop renewable energy sources to help serve their area's energy needs. These grants will also provide education and technical assistance to help farmers develop and market renewable energy resources and programs to educate the public about the benefits of biodiesel fuel use. Before I close I want to talk again about the need for the inclusion of the language that would include fighting birds in the interstate shipment ban that exists in the Animal Welfare Act. I would like to point out that the need for this stems largely from the need to give individual states the ability to enforce their laws. When a state legislature passes a law they expect to be able to enforce it. But when a loophole in Federal law allows for that law to be ``ducked'' there is a problem. The current provisions in the interstate shipment section of the Animal Welfare Act provides just such a loophole. Because live birds are specifically excluded from inclusion in the interstate transport ban they are the only animal that can legally be taken across state lines for the purpose of fighting. There is absolutely no need for this exclusion. When a person is caught in a State where cockfighting is illegal they can simply claim that they are transporting the birds to one of the 3 States where cockfighting is legal. And, law enforcement has to let them go. There is no way for law enforcement officers to determine if they really are transporting the birds or if the cockfight will be held right down the road. States should not have to trip over Federal law in the pursuit of enforcing their own laws. As I and many of my colleagues have previously stated, this is an important issue and I hope that we can do what makes the most sense, and will be best for, all of America's farmers.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I object.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Who controls the time?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me and giving me an opportunity to rise today to talk about the farm bill which the Senate is debating. I would also like to thank and commend the Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee Senator Lugar for his leadership during this debate. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I participated in the drafting of the bill which we are now about to consider. Also, when I was in the House of Representatives, some 5 years back, with the passage of the freedom to farm bill, I was on the Agriculture Committee on the House side. I think this is a great opportunity for us to do some good things to help agriculture in this country. However, it is an opportunity to do the wrong thing. I do think we have to be careful about moving forward too quickly on some of this legislation without giving our farmers and our ranchers and the agricultural interests in our various States an opportunity to study what is in the bill to give us a full assessment of how it is going to impact businesses in their various States. In the State of Colorado, agriculture is very important. We have always worked on trying to have a broad, diversified economy. So we have other industries and other sources that broaden out our economic base in the State. For example, in Weld County, this is a county frequently recognized as one of the largest agricultural producing counties in the country, usually rated in the top 5, based on gross agricultural dollars that are brought in. I have another county in northeastern Colorado that produces a lot of corn. It is one of the largest corn-producing counties in the country. Again, this varies a little bit depending on weather and how yields come out year to year. So certainly agriculture is important to the State of Colorado. As a member of the State senate--I also served on the agriculture committee in that body--we continually worked to have a broad base. In the State of Colorado, not only do we have some counties that contribute considerably to agriculture in the country, but they also add a lot of opportunity for other businesses in the State of Colorado to develop added value to those agricultural products. We all want to do the right thing and help the agricultural economy. But everyone needs to have the opportunity to review the legislation to understand how it effects them. This is not the bill that was reported out of committee, however, nor the one which was introduced on November 27. So it has been a little difficult to determine what is exactly contained in this particular bill. Farmers in Colorado, as best I can figure out, would probably do best under the Cochran-Roberts proposal. But, again, we need more time, more opportunity to talk with farmers in the State of Colorado. We certainly have different types of operations. Some of them that we have in Colorado are strictly ranching operations. We have a lot of wheat operations, irrigated agriculture--vegetables. We need time in our office to begin to assess how these various agricultural operations are going to be impacted by a bill as complicated as the farm bill that we are about to consider on the floor of the Senate. This has been an interesting process to go through this past couple of months as we have attempted to draft a bill. I have been somewhat skeptical, as we drew to a conclusion to get a bill here to the floor. The current farm bill, the Freedom to Farm bill, does not expire until September 2002. Again, I do not fully understand why it is so important we push forward so quickly because I think input from our agricultural interests in our respective States is very important. If this goes through too quickly, they will be divorced of that opportunity to have their input to their Representatives so they can have an impact on the agricultural legislation. I was a member of the House Agriculture Committee and supported the provisions contained within Freedom to Farm. I did not think it was necessary to rewrite the bill a year earlier. But here we are, ready to rewrite the farm bill. It is complicated. As I stated, I have some problems and concerns about the legislation and how this bill moved forward. This has been a trying time for the Senate, for example, with the anthrax problems we have had in the Hart Building which has impacted some 50 of our colleagues. It has been difficult for them to get in touch with their records that are embargoed within the building. It has made it difficult for colleagues who have been on the Agriculture Committee-- and I suspect it would have an impact on Members here on the floor--to evaluate what their positions are, as far as a major piece of legislation such as the agriculture bill, without full access to their office resources and files. So as we move forward in an expeditious manner, we put certain Members of this body at a disadvantage. We have to be sensitive to their needs and their desire to do the best job and represent their constituents. In my office, we have been hosting several staffers of Senator Craig Thomas. I am sure it has been difficult to continue to operate throughout this process. It is an unfortunate situation, and I am sure it has not helped the drafting of sound legislation. As for the process with which the farm bill moved through the Senate Agriculture Committee, we were not receiving legislative language until about 1 to 2 a.m. in the morning on the same day of the bill markup. It was hardly sufficient time to fully analyze and assess its impacts. Generally speaking, most of the titles were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. As the Chair knows, so many of these issues break out on a commodity basis and not on a partisan basis. During the committee markup, I did support an alternative commodity title offered by my colleagues, Senators Roberts and Cochran. The fundamental component was the establishment of farm savings accounts. Rather than continue to rely on Federal subsidies during bad times for farmers, many in Congress believe farmers and ranchers should have the opportunity to set up accounts to set aside income during the years in which their income is high so that they could then withdraw funds in years when their incomes are low. Unfortunately, this alternative was defeated in committee. I see this provision becoming more important as we see the price of implements used in farming, for example, get more expensive. If you have a large farm operation, it is not unusual to see somebody spend $100,000 for a tractor. I remember when I was a young lad working in the hay field, we had a large tractor. We spent $4,000 or $5,000 on it. When you have high costs on your implements, that means you have to accumulate savings over the years in order to be able to afford that tractor. If you have a year when you have a good return on your commodity prices and the farm does well, you may end up with a considerable amount of income. But you find yourself as a farmer getting kicked into higher income tax brackets. So instead of being able to set that aside for investments that will help you be a better farmer and produce better in future years, you find you have to hand the dollars over to the Federal Government. So the idea of the farm savings accounts is, during those years when you have a lot of revenues coming in, you can set that aside for future years. Then when you get into years when you don't have as much return on your crops, then you can carry those profits forward and distribute them out over the years. That has profound impact on farm operations today and is something that should be implemented. I indicate my strong support for an upcoming amendment to be offered by Senators Roberts and Cochran. When putting a farm bill together, my philosophy is to let farmers do what they do best, and get the Government out of the farm. Unfortunately, the farm bill that came out of committee and which is now being considered does not do that. It moves us back towards more Government intervention and less towards free markets and free enterprise. Senators Roberts and Cochran are to be commended for developing a sound alternative to that which came through the committee. This is a solid proposal they are going to introduce. It needs serious consideration by the Senate. An important component of the farm bill is the research title. As a veterinarian, this is an area in which I believe strongly. If we are going to continue to have an abundant and safe food supply, we need to continue to fund our Nation's research priorities. I was able to include two provisions which I believe are extremely important. The first allows for research on infectious animal disease research and extension to allow grants for developing programs for prevention and control methodologies for animal infectious diseases that impact trade, including vesicular stomatitis, bovine tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, brucellosis and E. coli 0157:H7 infection, which is the pathogenic form of E. coli infections. It also set aside laboratory tests for quicker detection of infected animals and the presence of diseases among herds, and prevention strategies, including vaccination programs. This is becoming a smaller world. Not only do we need to be concerned about diseases that are naturally occurring, but we need to be aware and cognizant of the potential impact of diseases that don't occur. For example, we saw the profound impact of hoof and mouth disease in countries such as England and the devastating impact on the livestock industry in that country. We need to make sure that we have the research in place in this country where we can develop modern technologies and that will help protect the livestock industry. The second provision I had put in the bill establishes research and extension grants for beef cattle genetics evaluation research. It provides that the USDA shall give priority to proposals to establish and coordinate priorities for genetic evaluation of domestic beef cattle. It consolidates research efforts to reduce duplication of effort and maximize the return to the beef industry and also to streamline the process between the development and adoption of new genetic evaluation methodologies by the industry; and then to identify new traits and technologies for inclusion in genetic programs in order to reduce the cost of beef production to provide consumers with a high nutritional value, healthy and affordable protein source. Research, in my view, is fundamental. It is extremely important that we have the research base there to continue to improve production in order to deal with infectious diseases that affect plants and animals and to help assure a high quality food supply. I do think the people of this country have a great deal. They have the best quality food at the most reasonable price of any place in the world. That is something to be proud of. We need to do everything we possibly can to make sure that we maintain our position in the world. A couple other provisions are in the bill. There are some attempts within the bill to deal with alternative fuels. It is something I have worked on. I established the renewable energy caucus. I believe that renewable fuels is certainly something we need to look at for energy independence instead of war dependence on energy sources particularly out of the Middle East. We need to look to agriculture to help us meet some of those energy needs. I also have a provision in there to deal with cockfighting. It is an attempt to try and protect States rights. The State of Colorado, along with 46 other States, have all passed laws against cockfighting. We have three States that have not. However, Mr. President, those states that have chosen to outlaw cockfighting have difficulty enforcing their own laws. As a result of a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act, which specifically excludes live birds from the interstate transport ban, individuals who are caught with fighting birds can avoid being detained by law enforcement by claiming that they are transporting the birds to a state in which cockfighting is legal. Game birds are the only animal for which this loophole exists and this is unfair to the states that have chosen not to allow cockfighting. My attempt is just to make sure that we don't preempt the States in a way through this Federal loophole that they can't enforce the law they passed. This is an important provision--something I have worked on for almost 3 years. It was passed by a strong majority in the House Farm Bill and has been passed previously by the Senate. It is my hope that we are able to retain this language in the final version of the Farm Bill. Mr. President, agriculture is important to this country. It is important to States such as mine and certainly important to the Senator who is presiding over the Senate at this particular time. I think we all have a common interest. We want to see our farmers and ranchers be able to stay in business, and we want them to be able to compete in a world market. We need to work to expand not only our international markets, but also our domestic markets. Sometimes that requires thinking beyond the box. It is a challenge for those of us who are looking at establishing the proper public policy that would allow our agricultural sector to continue to grow and prosper. This is an important piece of legislation. I hope we don't rush it through to the point where we haven't given the various agricultural interests an opportunity to have their input as to what the final outcome of this bill will be. I hope that we allow enough time for them to participate in the process. It is important that we do the right thing. We can do that if we allow plenty of opportunity for everybody to participate. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the ranking member of the committee and look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. ALLARD. One hour.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain for offering the ``Military Homeowner Equity Act'' and voice my full support as original sponsor. The bill provides tax equity to members of the uniformed services and the Foreign Service by permitting them to benefit from the capital gains tax exemption when they sell a principal residence, as other Americans enjoy. The bill does so by providing that absences from the principal residence due to serving on a qualified official extended duty as a member of a uniformed or Foreign Service of the United States be treated as using the residence in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of such residence. This bill does not create a new benefit, it simply adjusts an oversight and brings fairness and equality to the Code by recognizing the unique circumstances of the members of the uniformed and Foreign Services. This proposed correction is not new to this Congress. The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, which passed both the House and Senate during the 106th Congress included provisions to correct this problem. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed. The citizens of this country earned the many improvements made to the tax code in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their residence are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, $500,000 for joint filers. This is a well deserved tax break that encourages and rewards home ownership. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this relief. First, they must own the home for at least 2 of the last 5 years, and second they must live in the home for at least 2 of the last 5 years. It is the latter requirement that is not fair or equitable to our service members. The requirement for a taxpayer to have lived in a principal residence for 2 of the previous 5 years from the date of sale in order to take advantage of the full capital gains exclusion on the sale of a principal residence is difficult if not impossible for our career service members to meet. Unlike most Americans, career members of our military must, as a matter of law, serve throughout the world based on the needs of the nation. Our Foreign Service personnel, on average, spend more than 55 percent of their career abroad, for periods of 2 to 4 years. Consecutive tours keep our uniformed and Foreign Service members away from a ``principal residence'' far beyond the 5-year test period required in the current tax law. The unique circumstances of our uniformed and Foreign Service members effectively exclude them from taking full advantage of the 1997 changes in the tax law if they wish to sell their home. Service members move at the direction of the U.S. Government. They pick up and move their families on a regular basis whenever the need of their service requires them to move. It may be possible for service members to purchase a home at some locations, but selling that home and purchasing another at the next location is often not possible. This happens when their new location is overseas, they are assigned to live in government housing, off-post housing is not available for sale, or home prices in the new area are simply not within their budget. Thus, frequently they are unable to meet the requirement to live in a house 2 of the last 5 years preceding a sale. Additionally, our career service members need and want to sell their homes for all of the multitude of reasons that most Americans sell. They may have an increase or a decrease in the size of the family or want to change neighborhoods or schools. They may have the ability to afford more because of promotions or salary increases or it may simply be time to retire and leave the service. They should not be penalized for their time away when buying and selling their home was impossible or impractical. The intent of the capital gains exclusion in the IRS code is to encourage home ownership by exempting capital gains taxes on the sale their home and allow more Americans to enjoy our country's prosperity. Again, the situation that career service members are in makes it difficult, or impossible, to follow this course of action. This bill remedies the situation. I urge my colleagues to join us in co- sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I want to thank Senator McCain for offering the ``Military Homeowner Equity Act'' and voice my full support as original sponsor. The bill provides tax equity to members of the uniformed services and the Foreign Service by permitting them to benefit from the capital gains tax exemption when they sell a principal residence, as other Americans enjoy. The bill does so by providing that absences from the principal residence due to serving on a qualified official extended duty as a member of a uniformed or Foreign Service of the United States be treated as using the residence in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of such residence. This bill does not create a new benefit, it simply adjusts an oversight and brings fairness and equality to the Code by recognizing the unique circumstances of the members of the uniformed and Foreign Services. This proposed correction is not new to this Congress. The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act, which passed both the House and Senate during the 106th Congress included provisions to correct this problem. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed. The citizens of this country earned the many improvements made to the tax code in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their residence are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, $500,000 for joint filers. This is a well deserved tax break that encourages and rewards home ownership. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this relief. First, they must own the home for at least 2 of the last 5 years, and second they must live in the home for at least 2 of the last 5 years. It is the latter requirement that is not fair or equitable to our service members. The requirement for a taxpayer to have lived in a principal residence for 2 of the previous 5 years from the date of sale in order to take advantage of the full capital gains exclusion on the sale of a principal residence is difficult if not impossible for our career service members to meet. Unlike most Americans, career members of our military must, as a matter of law, serve throughout the world based on the needs of the nation. Our Foreign Service personnel, on average, spend more than 55 percent of their career abroad, for periods of 2 to 4 years. Consecutive tours keep our uniformed and Foreign Service members away from a ``principal residence'' far beyond the 5-year test period required in the current tax law. The unique circumstances of our uniformed and Foreign Service members effectively exclude them from taking full advantage of the 1997 changes in the tax law if they wish to sell their home. Service members move at the direction of the U.S. Government. They pick up and move their families on a regular basis whenever the need of their service requires them to move. It may be possible for service members to purchase a home at some locations, but selling that home and purchasing another at the next location is often not possible. This happens when their new location is overseas, they are assigned to live in government housing, off-post housing is not available for sale, or home prices in the new area are simply not within their budget. Thus, frequently they are unable to meet the requirement to live in a house 2 of the last 5 years preceding a sale. Additionally, our career service members need and want to sell their homes for all of the multitude of reasons that most Americans sell. They may have an increase or a decrease in the size of the family or want to change neighborhoods or schools. They may have the ability to afford more because of promotions or salary increases or it may simply be time to retire and leave the service. They should not be penalized for their time away when buying and selling their home was impossible or impractical. The intent of the capital gains exclusion in the IRS code is to encourage home ownership by exempting capital gains taxes on the sale their home and allow more Americans to enjoy our country's prosperity. Again, the situation that career service members are in makes it difficult, or impossible, to follow this course of action. This bill remedies the situation. I urge my colleagues to join us in co- sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to expand home ownership by increasing the supply of affordable mortgages available for home buyers. The legislation establishes a private-public partnership between mortgage providers and insurers and the Government National Mortgage Association, GNMA or Ginnie Mae. GNMA is a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and its current business is limited to home loans that are insured only by government agencies. GNMA provides a guarantee to investors who purchase FHA and VA home loans that are bundled into securities. These securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would authorize a new program that permits GNMA to guarantee securities that consist of mortgages insured by private mortgage insurance. Private insurance results in reduced risk to taxpayers which will in turn make more capital available for home mortgages. This new GNMA program would be targeted at first-time and middle income home buyers. The program would be limited to mortgages up to $275,000 and tailored to borrowers who have less than 20 percent down payments to put into homes. GNMA would benefit from the ability to compete for privately insured mortgage business. GNMA's income would increase through the program and GNMA would be strengthened by its ability to offer a greater variety of products to investors. By permitting GNMA to enter the secondary market for privately insured mortgages, the legislation would increase competition. Mortgage lenders would have a new entity to which they could sell their mortgages, and the number and variety of loan-approval systems at use in the low down payment mortgage market would increase. The beneficiaries of this increase in competition would be consumers who wish to purchase a home. Mr. President, the current rate of home ownership in the United States is 67 percent of households. This rate has risen steadily in recent decades and is great achievement for our nation. However, the rate of home ownership among minority families, entry level workers, and younger Americans remains much lower. This legislation is designed to further increase the home ownership rate by increasing the availability of affordable mortgages. The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would strengthen the Government National Mortgage Association. It would protect taxpayers by increasing private sector risk sharing on GNMA products. It would increase competition in the secondary mortgage market, helping to lower costs to consumers. And by increasing the use of varying underwriting systems it would help to qualify more first-time, middle income and minority home buyers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001. This legislation is designed to expand home ownership by increasing the supply of affordable mortgages available for home buyers. The legislation establishes a private-public partnership between mortgage providers and insurers and the Government National Mortgage Association, GNMA or Ginnie Mae. GNMA is a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and its current business is limited to home loans that are insured only by government agencies. GNMA provides a guarantee to investors who purchase FHA and VA home loans that are bundled into securities. These securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would authorize a new program that permits GNMA to guarantee securities that consist of mortgages insured by private mortgage insurance. Private insurance results in reduced risk to taxpayers which will in turn make more capital available for home mortgages. This new GNMA program would be targeted at first-time and middle income home buyers. The program would be limited to mortgages up to $275,000 and tailored to borrowers who have less than 20 percent down payments to put into homes. GNMA would benefit from the ability to compete for privately insured mortgage business. GNMA's income would increase through the program and GNMA would be strengthened by its ability to offer a greater variety of products to investors. By permitting GNMA to enter the secondary market for privately insured mortgages, the legislation would increase competition. Mortgage lenders would have a new entity to which they could sell their mortgages, and the number and variety of loan-approval systems at use in the low down payment mortgage market would increase. The beneficiaries of this increase in competition would be consumers who wish to purchase a home. Mr. President, the current rate of home ownership in the United States is 67 percent of households. This rate has risen steadily in recent decades and is great achievement for our nation. However, the rate of home ownership among minority families, entry level workers, and younger Americans remains much lower. This legislation is designed to further increase the home ownership rate by increasing the availability of affordable mortgages. The Home Ownership Expansion Act of 2001 would strengthen the Government National Mortgage Association. It would protect taxpayers by increasing private sector risk sharing on GNMA products. It would increase competition in the secondary mortgage market, helping to lower costs to consumers. And by increasing the use of varying underwriting systems it would help to qualify more first-time, middle income and minority home buyers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the accomplishments of two Boulder, Colorado scientists. On October 10, 2001 Carl E. Wieman, a professor of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Eric A. Cornell, the senior scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (NIST), received the Nobel Prize for Physics. The two shared the award with Wolfgang Ketterle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All three received this award for their work that created the world's first Bose-Einstein Condensate which occurs when a group of atoms overlap and their individual wavelengths behave in identical fashion creating a ``superatom''. The condensate allows scientists to study the extremely small world of quantum physics as if they are looking through a giant magnifying glass. Its creation established a new branch of atomic physics that has provided a number of scientific discoveries. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NIST, the Office of Naval Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Weiman and Cornell are both fellows of JILA which is formerly known as the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics where much of the research was done. It is a joint institute of the University of Colorado at Boulder and NIST and it exists for research and graduate education in the physical sciences. Both Wieman and Cornell have won several prestigious awards in the past including the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics from the Franklin Institute in 2000, the Lorentz Medal from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1998, the King Faisal International Prize in Science in 1997 and the Fritz London Award for low-temperature physics in 1996. Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell became the second and third Nobel Prize winners at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Cornell is the second for NIST. Thomas Cech, a CU-Boulder professor of Chemistry and biochemistry, was a co winner of the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Sydney Altman of Yale University for research on RNA. William Phillips, A NIST fellow, shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics. I want to personally congratulate Carl Wieman and Eric Cornell for this truly prestigious award of excellence in scientific research.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise today to honor a great military leader, MG Edward Soriano, the outgoing commanding general of 7th Infantry and Fort Carson, CO. Major General Campbell will assume command and General Soriano will be moving on to greater responsibilities. As he and his wife Vivian depart Ft. Carson, they leave with a record of outstanding public service and numerous significant accomplishments. Among these accomplishments is the Army's first housing privatization project. This project has been a major success, is ahead of schedule, and is now a model for military installations throughout the country. Additionally, General Soriano has overseen numerous successful deployments of units, including the deployment of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to Bosnia. Now, as our military forces conduct the war on terrorism, it is evident that the service members and their families of Ft. Carson will benefit greatly from his work. His efforts to improve the readiness and capability of Ft. Carson and its units has met with great success and will have a long lasting and significant positive impact on the soldiers and civilians who live and work there. Furthermore he has ensured that Ft. Carson will provide our President and Secretary of Defense a first class platform from which to deploy military power. General Soriano has done his excellent work on the facilities at Ft. Carson, despite funding shortfalls. His most significant achievement, however, has been in preparing the war fighting capability of its people. The soldiers and civilians at Ft. Carson are among the best in the Army, and are proven performers. Any venture managed by the men and women of ``The Mountain Post'' will certainly meet with success. Finally, General Soriano and his wife have developed and nurtured an outstanding working relationship with the people of Colorado Springs, surrounding local communities, and the nearby Air Force Bases. They will be sorely missed, but they leave an organization committed to the pursuit of excellence. I wish him good luck and God speed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Florida as well as Senator Dodd worked on this amendment. I appreciate their input.

Mr. ALLARD. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up the amendment numbered 1755.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, would you add the following cosponsors: Senator Warner, Senator Allen, Senator Hagel, Senator Cleland, and Senator Bill Nelson.

Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Virginia has a lot of constituents from his State who have dedicated their lives to protecting the citizens of this country, and I have a lot of citizens in Colorado who have dedicated their lives to serving in the military and protecting and securing the interests of the United States. This is a moral issue. We need to make sure they have an opportunity to vote and do not lose that right. I thank the manager of the bill for his effort in working on this compromise.

Mr. ALLARD. In 1864, in the midst of a civil war, the United States of America held an election. In 1944, in the midst of a world war, the United States of America held an election. And in 2002, and in 2004, no matter what military actions we are involved in for the current war on terrorism, the United States of America will hold elections. It is a fundamental part of our system, of our democracy. Our claim to being the world's foremost champion of ``liberty and justice for all'' depends on the regular, free, and pure exercise of citizen's voting rights. And now that we are deploying troops overseas as the beginning of this campaign, it is our duty to correct the flaws in the absentee military voting system that became so glaringly obvious during the last election. To that end I introduced S. 381, which after much helpful input from the co-sponsors has been modified into what is before us today. Let me briefly describe this amendment so we can move forward. This amendment prohibits States from disqualifying our men and women in the military from voting based on their ballot's lack of postmark, address, notarized witness signature, or a reasonably similar signature. The current language in the bill only offers military voters a ``meaningful opportunity to exercise voting rights.'' This does not ensure that our fighting men and women will be able to vote. Our amendment will instead move us toward that goal. The amendment also facilitates voting for men and women in the services who are separated before an election and because of residency requirements previously faced problems voting. There is a provision for electronic voting, strongly endorsed by Senator Bill Nelson, that sets up a demo for that purpose. There is a requirement for a report that will be filed with the Department of Defense by the States, reporting to them on how the States are addressing existing problems with their absentee military voting requirements, so our military men and women will have an opportunity to vote. That is basically the amendment. I hope we can move forward with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. It is important to include that in the Record. I thank the Senator for that reminder. It was worked on diligently by both sides. There is mutual support to move forward. I thank the Senator for his help and for the support of Senator Levin.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing with Senator Bob Smith an amendment to improve the organization and management of the Department of Defense with respect to space programs and activities. This amendment is more important than ever. We are about to engage in an extraordinary struggle against the forces of terrorism. This will be a far-flung and difficult fight. Good intelligence will be at a premium and our space assets play a key role in achieving that. We must do whatever we can to be sure that all our military assets are managed as efficiently and effectively as possible. This amendment, which is based on the recommendations of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, (also known as the Space Commission), is intended to do just that for our space assets. The Commission looked at current DOD organization and management as it pertains to the development and implementation of national-level guidance, establishing requirements, acquiring and operating systems, and planning, programming and budgeting for national security space capabilities. The Commission found that the United States is dependent on space, creating vulnerabilities and demands on our space systems requiring space to be recognized as a top national security priority. The Commission also concluded that these new vulnerabilities and demands are not adequately addressed by the current management structure at the Department. The Commission found that a number of space activities should be merged, chains of command adjusted, lines of communications opened and policies modified to achieve greater responsibility and accountability. Senator Smith and I agree, and believe that space assets will be critical in the coming conflict with the forces of terrorism. That is why we are introducing this amendment. The Department is making some of these changes today. However, we believe Congress should show its support to our military men and women by providing the Secretary with authority to realign his Department to make it more effective. This legislation will provide the Secretary of Defense with the tools he needs for more effective management and organization of space program and activities. Specifically the legislation will: Provide discretionary authority for the Secretary of Defense to establish an Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence and Information. Right now, the Secretary does not have this authority. While he has decided for the moment not to adopt this Commission recommendation, the amendment would provide him the authority to do so if he so chooses; It would establish the Air Force as the Executive Agent for DOD space programs for DOD functions designated by the Secretary of Defense; It would assign the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Director of the NRO and directs the Under Secretary of the Air Force to coordinate the space activities of DOD and the NRO; It would establish a budget mechanism to provide a better understanding of the resources we dedicate to space programs; It would direct the Under Secretary of the Air Force to establish a space career field to promote the growth of specialists in space programs, doctrine, and operations. A budget mechanism and space career field will both help provide the needed focus on space and space activities; And finally, the amendment would provide for joint service management of space programs to the maximum extent practicable, to assure that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps stay actively involved in space programs. This amendment will provide DOD the authority and flexibility to move faster and more efficiently in its reorganization and help provide the focus and attention that space programs and activities deserve. This is imperative in this dangerous world, in which our forces need the best technology, training, and support. I want to thank my colleague for joining with me in this effort to provide the Department the tools it needs to make space a top national security priority. We welcome all Senators to join us in support of this important legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. On behalf of Senator Warner, I ask unanimous consent David Kirk, a military fellow in his office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's debate on Senate bill 1438, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2002. And also I ask unanimous consent that Lon Pribble, a national defense fellow in my office, have floor privileges during the entire debate of the national defense authorization bill fiscal year 2002. And on behalf of Senator Ensign, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to his military legislative fellow, Ms. Gemma Meloni, for the duration of debate on the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I understand there are a couple Members yet on our side who are still working on it. I am not sure whether we have those issues resolved or not. As soon as Senator Warner returns to this Chamber, we might be able to get a final agreement on that.